lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] kmemcheck v4
    On 2/14/08, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    > Vegard Nossum wrote:
    > > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
    > > index 412672a..7bdb37f 100644
    > > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
    > > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
    > > @@ -1294,7 +1294,11 @@ static inline void __skb_queue_purge(struct
    > > sk_buff_head *list)
    > > static inline struct sk_buff *__dev_alloc_skb(unsigned int length,
    > > gfp_t gfp_mask)
    > > {
    > > - struct sk_buff *skb = alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask);
    > > + struct sk_buff *skb;
    > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KMEMCHECK
    > > + gfp_mask |= __GFP_ZERO;
    > > +#endif
    >
    >
    > Use __GFP_NOTRACK here (no need to wrap it in CONFIG_KMEMCHECK either).
    >
    > > + skb = alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask);
    >
    > > if (likely(skb))
    > > skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD);
    > > return skb;
    >
    >
    > > diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c b/init/do_mounts.c
    > > index f865731..87b1b0f 100644
    > > --- a/init/do_mounts.c
    > > +++ b/init/do_mounts.c
    > > @@ -201,9 +201,13 @@ static int __init do_mount_root(char *name, char
    > > *fs, int flags, void *data)
    > > return 0;
    > > }
    > >
    > > +#if PAGE_SIZE < PATH_MAX
    > > +# error increase the fs_names allocation size here
    > > +#endif
    > > +
    > > void __init mount_block_root(char *name, int flags)
    > > {
    > > - char *fs_names = __getname();
    > > + char *fs_names = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 1);
    > > char *p;
    > > #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
    > > char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
    > > @@ -251,7 +255,7 @@ retry:
    > > #endif
    > > panic("VFS: Unable to mount root fs on %s", b);
    > > out:
    > > - putname(fs_names);
    > > + free_pages((unsigned long)fs_names, 1);
    >
    >
    > As discussed before, I don't think kmemcheck should be complaining about
    > this (even though this is a potential bug). Have you tried with the
    > current patches to see if it still triggers? Could have been one of the
    > kmemcheck bugs, no?
    >
    >
    > > @@ -255,6 +258,9 @@ struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device
    > > *dev,
    > > int node = dev->dev.parent ? dev_to_node(dev->dev.parent) : -1;
    > > struct sk_buff *skb;
    > >
    > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KMEMCHECK
    > > + gfp_mask |= __GFP_ZERO;
    > > +#endif
    >
    >
    > __GFP_NOTRACK here
    >
    >
    > Pekka
    >

    Will fix those, thanks!


    Vegard


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-14 21:33    [W:0.023 / U:0.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site