Re: [Patch] lkdtm: avoid calling lkdtm_do_action() with spin lock held

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Cong Wang wrote:
> @@ -323,14 +323,16 @@ static void lkdtm_do_action(enum ctype which)
>         }
>         case CT_WRITE_AFTER_FREE: {
>                 size_t len = 1024;
> -               u32 *data = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> +               u32 *data = kmalloc(len, GFP_ATOMIC);
>  
>                 kfree(data);
> -               schedule();
> +               udelay(100);
>                 memset(data, 0x78, len);
>                 break;
>         }

I can't think of why the udelay would have any positive effect here,
if the idea of the schedule was to let some other process allocate and
use the memory.

Can't you just get rid of the count_lock if you use an atomic_t for the
count and use appropriate accesses on it?

	Arnd
--
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/