Re: [PATCH] lib/idr.c: Zero memory properly in idr_remove_all

[Manfred Spraul]

Kristian HÃgsberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 20:53 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>   
> > Kristian HÃgsberg wrote:
> >     
> > >   The problem
> > > isn't about returning un-zeroed-out objects to the kmem cache, the
> > > problem is returning them to the idr free list.
> > >   
> > >       
> > I think this is wrong:
> > The slab allocator assumes that the objects that are given to 
> > kmem_cache_free() are properly constructed.
> > I.e.: No additional constructor is called prior to returning the object 
> > from the next kmem_cache_alloc() call.
> >     
>
> That's fine, the ctor associated with the kmem cache is called, and in
> the case of idr, it does a memset().
>   
No.
As I said, the construtor is not called.
An object that is given to kmem_cache_free() must be properly constructed.
kmem_cache_free() just adds the obj pointer to a list, the next 
kmem_cache_alloc returns the pointer.

This is also documented in mm/slab.c:
* The memory is organized in caches, one cache for each object type.
* (e.g. inode_cache, dentry_cache, buffer_head, vm_area_struct)
* Each cache consists out of many slabs (they are small (usually one
* page long) and always contiguous), and each slab contains multiple
* initialized objects.
*
* This means, that your constructor is used only for newly allocated
* slabs and you must pass objects with the same initializations to
* kmem_cache_free.
*

If the idr code passes uninitialized objects to kmem_cache_free(), then 
the next kmem_cache_alloc will return a bad object.

--
   Manfred
--
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/