From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758100AbYA1Ta3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:30:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753477AbYA1TaQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:30:16 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:21542 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753436AbYA1TaO (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:30:14 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Cqogzyw7Iv5ZPlKOyxQchPCEex0GtYl1K03wE6byHygqoJ0aLfKMV1xoOunw/WMTK3wjE7/mcNdQBUDqGUzh/fJ33bGUAhEWHvQ6gmXmC5mcvZaBq0/dQqbrXOxZkz2fjyCHASMmxhu1nKGHgHDInQ/yt0JenkVy9a2evE9DUXA= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:29:47 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu , Jacob Shin , Linus Torvalds , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: fix runtime error in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd_64.c Message-ID: <20080128192947.GA6720@cvg> References: <20080127233751.GA4524@kroah.com> <1201477122-4541-2-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de> <20080128122434.GA24757@elte.hu> <20080128173706.GA17495@suse.de> <20080128175736.GC22487@elte.hu> <20080128183237.GA19829@suse.de> <20080128190149.GA24424@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080128190149.GA24424@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Ingo Molnar - Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:01:49PM +0100] | | * Greg KH 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 -