From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:47:11 -0400 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [SLUB 3/5] Validation of slabs (metadata and guard zones) Message-ID: <20070410204711.GB1283@redhat.com> References: <20070410191910.8011.76133.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070410191921.8011.16929.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070410133137.e366a16b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070410133137.e366a16b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:31:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > an object have not been compromised. > > > > A single slabcache can be checked by writing a 1 to the "validate" file. > > > > i.e. > > > > echo 1 >/sys/slab/kmalloc-128/validate > > > > or use the slabinfo tool to check all slabs > > > > slabinfo -v > > > > Error messages will show up in the syslog. > > Neato. I had a patch (I think originally from Manfred Spraul) that I carried in Fedora for a while which this patch reminded me of. Instead of a /sys file however, it ran off a timer every few minutes to check redzones of unfreed objects. It picked up a few bugs, but eventually, I got bored rediffing it, it broke, and it fell by the wayside. (It was against slab too, rather than one of its decendants). Whilst I nursed that along for a few months, I made a few not-so-agressive pushes to get it mainlined, but there seemed to be no real interest. (Yikes, something that'll show we have *more* bugs? Noooo!) Would be nice to have equal functionality across the different allocators. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org