[uml-devel] Re: problems with UML, issues with includes

[Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>]

Further update on the very strange behaviour I'm seeing.

I instrumented kfree() as mentioned before, and also instrumented 
activate_fd() to test after um_kmalloc() whether the result was already 
in the active_fds list.

I had assumed that I would see it being freed while still on the list, 
then being returned from malloc the next time around, causing a dupe.

However, what I actually saw was


new fd is same address as one already in active_fds
deleting address currently in active_fds


In other words, the um_kmalloc() was returning an address already in the 
active_fds list, *before* an address still in the list had been 
kfree()'d.  The kfree() that I see with an address in the list is the 
one from the out_unlock jump target in activeate_fd().

So somehow um_kmalloc() is returning duplicate addresses without an 
intervening call to kfree().

Any ideas?

Chris




-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel