Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot()

[Dan Williams]

On 7/24/07, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What about the new async crypto stuff? I've been looking, but is it
> guarenteed that async_memcpy() runs in process context with interrupts
> enabled always? If not, there's a km type bug there.

Currently the only user is the MD raid456 driver, and yes, it only
performs copies from the handle_stripe routine which is always run in
process context with interrupts enabled.  However this is not
documented.  Would it be advisable to add a WARN_ON for this
condition?

> In general, I think the highmem stuff could do with more safety checks:
>
> - People ALWAYS get the atomic unmaps wrong, passing in the page instead
>   of the address. I've seen tons of these. And since kunmap_atomic()
>   takes a void pointer, nobody notices until it goes boom.
> - People easily get the km type wrong - they use KM_USERx in interrupt
>   context, or one of the irq variants without disabling interrupts.
>
> If we could just catch these two types of bugs, we've got a lot of these
> problems covered.
>
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
--
Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/