On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:59:06 +0100,
Kay Sievers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 11:05 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:00:57 -0500 (EST),
> > Alan Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:42:00PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > This patch (as1020) adds a check to kobject_init() to insure that the
> > > > > ktype field is not NULL. This is just for safety's sake; as far as I
> > > > > know there are no remaining places where the field is left unset. But
> > > > > ironically, kset_init() did fail to set it! The patch fixes that and
> > > > > removes some redundant initialization in kset_createa().
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch also fixes up elevator_init(), where ktype was set after
> > > > > calling kobject_init() instead of before.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's safe to set ktype after kobject_init, it was just not safe to
> > > > set the kset. As Kay pointed out, I just added a patch to my tree to
> > > > resolve this issue, and I'll go back and update the documentation now.
> > > >
> > > > I do like the "check for a ktype" warning, I'll go add that to my local
> > > > tree and see what breaks. Odds are, all the static kobjects will :(
> > >
> > > You have to be careful. The ktype check I wrote lives in
> > > kobject_init() -- that's why I had to make elevator_init() assign the
> > > ktype before calling kobject_init(). If you put the check into
> > > kobject_add() instead then you won't end up checking objects that get
> > > initialized but not added.
> > >
> > > Yes, nobody would deliberately use a kobject without adding it, but it
> > > could happen as the result of an failure between the _init and _add
> > > calls.
> >
> > And if someone calls kobject_put() after kobject_init() to clean up,
> > their release function will not be called if they didn't set the ktype.
> > So the check really belongs into kobject_init() IMO.
>
> Hmm, will one expect that the whole object will also be free'd when we
> suggest to call kobject_put() to cleanup? That might be pretty
> unexpected, right?
I'd expect the kobject to be freed if I called kobject_put() on my last
reference (but that may be because I'm familiar with the code :)).
OTOH, if getting the reference on the kset is moved from kobject_init()
to kobject_add(), we aren't forced to use kobject_put() but may use
kfree().
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
