In message <20180524044746.gx71...@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff writes: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 06:44:20AM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > M> I fundamentally disagree with this part. > M> > M> If a known value of a given field is needed for assertion purposes, you > M> can add (possibly conditional) code setting this specific value. It > M> probably should not be zero if it can be helped. > M> > M> Conditional zeroing of the *whole* struct depending on invariants will > M> *hide* uninitialized memory read bugs - production kernel will have > M> whatever it happens to find, while *debug* kernel will guarantee to > M> have all the values zeroed. In fact the flag actively combats redzoning. > M> if the resulting allocation is zeroed, poisoning is actively neutered. > M> But only if debug is enabled. > M> > M> That said, I find the change harmful. > > +1 on fundamentally disagree with M_ZERO_INVARIANTS. It makes the > INVARIANTS-enabled kernels to crash _later_ than production kernels, > since instead of uma_junk it places clean zeroes. > > May be changes like that deserve more than a 30 minute time frame for review?
+1. I think phab might help. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <c...@freebsd.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
