Re: [Bug? Report] kref problem

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:53 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:41:19PM +0300, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > struct my_obj_a
> > > {
> > > 	struct kobject kobj;
> > > } a;
> > > 
> > > struct my_obj_b
> > > {
> > > 	struct kobject kobj;
> > > } b;
> > 
> > Don't statically create kobjects, it's not nice.  But the real problem
> > is below...
> 
> This seems to be one of those top ten sysfs snafus.  Could we take the
> definitions from include/asm-generic/sections.h, and make a kobject
> verification function to put in the critical generic kernel functions
> that deal with kobjects,  like kobject_init()?

I wish.  The main offender of this is the kernel core code itself, with
the decl_subsys and struct bus stuff.  If you provide some nice fuctions
to fix those up to be dynamic, then I would have no problem with the
function you have below.

> Somthing like...
> 
> void verify_dynamic_kobject_allocation(struct kobject *kobj)
> {
> 	if (kobj >= &_data && kobj < &_edata)
> 		goto warn;
> 	if (kobj >= &_bss_start && kobj < &_bss_end)
> 		goto warn;
> 	...
> 	return;
> warn:
> 	printk(KERN_WARN "statically allocated kobject, you suck...\n");
> }
> 
> I'm not sure that all of the architectures fill in all of the values,
> but we could at least support the warnings for the ones that do.  That
> includes at least i386, so it could be a relatively effective tool.
> 
> I'll cook up a real patch in a bit.

That would be fun to play with, I'd appreciate it.  If nothing else,
I'll add it to my tree for future use.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/