[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: shmem_fill_super(): WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized memory
2009/9/20 Ingo Molnar <>:
> here's another one:
> [    0.337000] Total of 1 processors activated (3088.38 BogoMIPS).
> [    0.352000] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
> [    0.360000] WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized memory (9f8020fc)
> [    0.361000] a44240820000000041f6998100000000000000000000000000000000ff030000
> [    0.368000]  i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i u u u u i i i i i i i i i i u u
> [    0.375000]                                                          ^
> [    0.376000]
> [    0.377000] Pid: 9, comm: khelper Not tainted (2.6.31-tip #206) P4DC6
> [    0.378000] EIP: 0060:[<810a3a95>] EFLAGS: 00010246 CPU: 0
> [    0.379000] EIP is at shmem_fill_super+0xb5/0x120
> [    0.380000] EAX: 00000000 EBX: 9f845400 ECX: 824042a4 EDX: 8199f641
> [    0.381000] ESI: 9f8020c0 EDI: 9f845400 EBP: 9f81af68 ESP: 81cd6eec

> Is this one known too?
>        Ingo

Thanks for the report.

AFAICT it's this line of mm/shmem.c:

2356 inode = shmem_get_inode(sb, S_IFDIR | sbinfo->mode, 0,

and the loading of sbinfo->mode. It fits with the offset 0x3c(%esi) ==
the address reported by kmemcheck and the offset of ->mode:

(gdb) p &((struct shmem_sb_info *) 0).mode
$1 = (mode_t *) 0x3c

Looking for the definition of mode_t, it seems to be defined in x86
sources as unsigned short:

arch/x86/include/asm/posix_types_32.h:11:typedef unsigned short __kernel_mode_t;
include/linux/types.h:typedef __kernel_mode_t mode_t;

And the load was clearly 32-bit (kmemcheck said so) and in my assembly
dump it is also so.

As I said before, I really don't like the solution of sprinkling the
kmemcheck annotations all over the place to cover up field padding
inside structs, not in the least because they confuse more than they
help, and they are not maintainable -- when somebody changes the
struct definitions, anything may happen to the field layout, and then
the annotation may have to change too. And it's not exactly obvious.

I still vote for patching gcc as the long-term solution. There is
-fmudflap, there is -fstack-protector, why not a -fsacred-padding? Of
course it has to be implemented too...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-20 19:39    [W:0.059 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site