On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
quoted text
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >  I will check this when I get back to some bandwidth -- but in the meantime,
> >  does kmemcheck special-case SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU?  It is legal to access
> >  newly-freed items in that case, as long as you did rcu_read_lock()
> >  before gaining a reference to them and don't hold the reference past
> >  the matching rcu_read_unlock().
> 
> No, kmemcheck is work in progress and does not know about
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU yet. The reason I asked Vegard to post the warning
> was because Peter, Vegard, and myself identified this particular
> warning as a real problem. But yeah, kmemcheck can cause false
> positives for RCU for now.

Makes sense, and to me Pauls analysis of the code looks totally correct
- there's no bug there, at least related to hlist traversal and
kmem_cache_free(), since we are under rcu_read_lock() and thus hold off
the grace for freeing.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/