From: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@alex.org.uk>
To: Dawson Engler <engler@csl.Stanford.EDU>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Evan Parker <nave@stanford.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mc@CS.Stanford.EDU,
Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@alex.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [CHECKER] repetitive/contradictory comparison bugs for 2.4.7
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:54:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <602725597.996180886@[169.254.62.211]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200107260113.SAA11847@csl.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <200107260113.SAA11847@csl.Stanford.EDU>
>> > other 10 are questionable. Those 10 are all simple variations on the
>> > following code:
>> >
>> > Start --->
>> > if (!tmp_buf) {
>> > page = get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
>> >
>> > Error --->
>> > if (tmp_buf)
>> > free_page(page);
>> > else
>> > tmp_buf = (unsigned char *) page;
>> > }
>>
>> That one is not a bug. The serial drivers do this to handle a race.
>> Really it should be
May be I'm being dumb here, and without wishing to open the 'volatile'
can of worms elsewhere, but:
static char * tmp_buf;
How will this be guaranteed to help handle a race, when gcc is
likely either to have tmp_buf in a register (not declared
volatile), or perhaps even optimize out the second reference.
Seems to me (and I may well be wrong), either there is a
race thread (tmp_buf being assigned between the first
test and grabbing the page), in which case as tmp_buf may
be in a register, it doesn't avoid the race (and potentially
stomps on the existing buffer), or there is not a race, in
which case the second check is unnecessary. IE the checker
found a real bug.
--
Alex Bligh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-07-26 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-07-25 0:08 Evan Parker
2001-07-25 0:51 ` Neil Brown
2001-07-25 8:27 ` Russell King
2001-07-25 13:34 ` Alan Cox
2001-07-26 1:13 ` Dawson Engler
2001-07-26 19:54 ` Alex Bligh - linux-kernel [this message]
2001-07-26 20:15 ` Russell King
2001-07-26 22:07 ` Alan Cox
2001-07-26 22:06 ` Alan Cox
2001-07-26 22:24 ` Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='602725597.996180886@[169.254.62.211]' \
--to=linux-kernel@alex.org.uk \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=engler@csl.Stanford.EDU \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mc@CS.Stanford.EDU \
--cc=nave@stanford.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®