On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:52:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:08:42 +0200
> Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Heed the notice in list_del: "Note: list_empty() on entry does not
> > return true after this, the entry is in an undefined state.", and
> > check for precisely that condition.
> >
> > There are currently a few instances in the code of this sequence:
> > if(!list_empty(pnode))
> > list_del(pnode);
> > which seems to be useless or dangerous if intended to protect from
> > repeated del's. And given that I've seen an oops pointing to a
> > dereference of poison in such a list_empty, I'm veering towards
> > dangerous. This patch would make such errors obvious.
> >
> > Nothing is changed in the non-DEBUG_LIST build.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * list_empty - tests whether a list is empty
> > + * @head: the list to test.
> > + */
> > +int list_empty(const struct list_head *head)
> > +{
> > + if ((head->prev == LIST_POISON2) || (head->prev == LIST_POISON1))
> > + WARN(1, "list_empty performed on a node "
> > + "at %p removed from a list.\n", head);
> > + else
> > + WARN((head->prev == head) != (head->next == head),
> > + "list_empty corruption. %p<-%p->%p is half-empty.\n",
> > + head->prev, head, head->next);
> > +
> > + return head->next == head;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(list_empty);
>
> The second warning here is triggering maybe a hundred times from all
> over the place just when booting the kernel.
>
> Here's the first two:
>
>
> [ 64.295941] WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:89 list_empty+0x79/0x85()
> [ 64.296129] list_empty corruption. ffff880255bcb788<-ffff880255bcb788->ffff88024c3a3c20 is half-empty.
It looks like a race between __list_del() and list_empty().
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
