return;
> }
>
> part in __queue_work(), aren't you? But since flush_work() is used for
> waiting for
> a work to complete, that work can be either queued state (list_empty() ==
> false) or
> not queued state (list_empty() == true). Thus, I don't think that
return;
> }
>
> part in __queue_work(), aren't you? But since flush_work() is used for
> waiting for
> a work to complete, that work can be either queued state (list_empty() ==
> false) or
> not queued state (list_empty() == true). Thus, I don't thi
e) or
not queued state (list_empty() == true). Thus, I don't think that flush_work()
can
use list_empty() for checking whether that work was initialized.
[PATCH v2] workqueue: Try to catch flush_work() without INIT_WORK().
syzbot found a flush_work() caller who forgot to call INIT_WORK()
because
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 11:41:22AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/19 4:48, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 02:04:58AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > __queue_work has a sanity check already for work, but using list_empty.
> > Seems
> > slightly better to be consistent?
>
On 2019/01/19 4:48, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 02:04:58AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> syzbot found a flush_work() caller who forgot to call INIT_WORK()
>> because that work_struct was allocated by kzalloc(). But the message
>>
>> INFO: trying to register non-static key.
>>
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 02:04:58AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> syzbot found a flush_work() caller who forgot to call INIT_WORK()
> because that work_struct was allocated by kzalloc(). But the message
>
> INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> the code is fine but needs lockdep
syzbot found a flush_work() caller who forgot to call INIT_WORK()
because that work_struct was allocated by kzalloc(). But the message
INFO: trying to register non-static key.
the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
turning off the locking correctness validator.
by
7 matches
Mail list logo
