Re: [patch 0/2] object debugging infrastructure

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 10:24:52AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We can see an ever repeating problem pattern with objects of any kind in
> > the kernel:
> > 
> > 1) free of active objects
> > 2) reinitialization of active objects
> 
> Ah, this looks nice.  For kobjects I would like to track the above, as
> well as:
> 	- use of initialized objects
> 	- use of "freed" objects
> 	- objects that are never destroyed, yet the code controlling
> 	  them thinks they are.
> 
> I say "freed" as sometimes kobjects are in static structures and are not
> in memory that ends up being kfree() so slab poisoning doesn't help.

Good point. I try to come up with the infrastructure for that.

> Do you think that would be able to worked into this framework?  At first
> glance, it seems like it would be easy to add, but would like to make
> sure.

Yes, that should be possible

> If so, I'll gladly add this to the kobjects to help with issues there.

kobjects came to my mind as well, when I was thinking about possible
use cases.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/