Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] Fix malloc-use-vmalloc

[Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>]

blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it said:
> 1) I think that the intervals don't include high_physmem and end_vm,
> so we  should have addr < ... instead of addr <=.

Yup.

> 2) Also, even worse, it seems ok until you read your comment. During
> the boot,  if random values are in the vars (and it's so until
> kmalloc_ok is turned on)  we can have malloc()ed memory thought of as
> kmalloc()ed or vmalloc()ed one,  and then leaked.

The comment was badly worded.

> 3) Solution to 2): if I am right about thing #1, then it should be
> enough to  set end_vm and high_physmem to 0 at startup (they are
> global vars, so it's  already true), once there are the < instead of
> <=. And don't say in the  comment that memory regions are not
> initialized. 

They are all globals, so they are initialized to 0.  It looks to me like
anything which hits that code before kmalloc is set up will correctly go
through the __real_free case.

				Jeff



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&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