lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan
From
From: Hiroshi DOYU <Hiroshi.DOYU@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:34:58 +0300 (EEST)

> From: ext Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan
> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:01:24 +0200
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, I eventually got the time to look at your patches.
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
>> On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:25 +0100, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:
>>> There is a false positive case that a pointer is calculated by other
>>> methods than the usual container_of macro. "kmemleak_ignore" can cover
>>> such a false positive, but it would loose the advantage of memory leak
>>> detection. This patch allows kmemleak to work with such false
>>> positives by introducing a new special memory block with a specified
>>> calculation formula. A client module can register its area with a
>>> conversion function, with which function kmemleak scan could calculate
>>> a correct pointer.
>>
>> While something needs to be done to cover these situations, I'm not so
>> convinced about the method as it complicates the code requiring such
>> conversion by having to insert two kmemleak hooks and a callback
>> function.
>>
>> Can we not add a new prio tree (or just use the existing one) for
>> pointer aliases? The advantage is that you only have a single function
>> to call, something like kmemleak_add_alias() and you do it at the point
>> the value was converted.

Ok, I understand now. Please ignore my previous. I'll try the above.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-02 14:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans