[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:01:49PM +0100]
|
| * Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
|
| > > Are kobjects protected against accidental copying? If not add &kobj
| > > to the 'magic value' too, and check that - it becomes
| > > copying-resistent that way and has the same cost to check. (which is
| > > negligible anyway)
| >
| > Oh, that's a very cool idea, I like it :)
|
| hey, you are welcome :-)
|
| [ I guess i should not mention that i've implemented list debugging for
| Linux that checksums the struct list contents and stores the checksum
| in it (offset by a magic value plus to address of the list head), and
| thus protects it against accidental corruption? It was capable of
| reliably detecting mixed up list_add() arguments for example, it
| detected list corruption of _every_ sort, it detected double
| list_del() and list_add() of an already active list member as well. It
| was even capable of detecting SMP races: two parallel unserialized
| list_del()'s on the same list head were detected and warned about as
| well. I guess i should release it one of these days? =B-) ]
|
interesting... something like hash checks in lockdep?
[...snip...]
- Cyrill -
--
