[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6 7/9] Remove some of the kmemleak false positives
Hi Ingo,

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> While it's always good to reduce the amount of false positives, i dont
> think it's unacceptable for inclusion right now. A few dozen annotations
> out of 7000+ allocation call sites isnt a big maintainance problem - and
> the benefits of automatic leak-checking are really huge.

Did you look at the call sites? It seems clear that kmemleak doesn't
support existing kernel coding style yet (see below) which means we're not
covering all false positives.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> What i'd like to see though are clear explanations about why an
> allocation is not considered a leak, in terms of comments added to the
> code. That will also help us reduce the number of annotations later on.

I found at least two unacceptable false positive classes:

- arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:
False positive because res pointer is stored in a global instance of
struct resource.

- drivers/base/platform.c and fs/ext3/dir.c:
False positive because we allocate memory for struct + some extra

At least the latter can be fixed as outlined by Catalin in another mail.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-12 13:11    [W:0.086 / U:3.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site