lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6 7/9] Remove some of the kmemleak false positives

* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> wrote:

> My opinion is not to implement the "anywhere inside a block" method as
> it would increase the risk of false negatives with a little benefit
> (removing some false positive notifications, probably less than 30).

agreed.

> To the other extreme is Ingo's suggestion of using exact type
> identification but I don't think this would be acceptable for the
> kernel as it would to modify all the memory alloc calls in the kernel
> to either pass an additional parameter (the type id) or another
> post-allocation call to kmemleak to update the id.

passing in the type ID wouldnt be that bad and it would have other
advantages as well: for example we could do strict type-checking of
allocation size versus type-we-use-it-for.

As long as the conversion is gradual i think we could try this. I.e.
we'd default to 'no ID passed', and in that case we would fall back to
the size-based method and generate an ID out of the structure size.

> Anyway, the current implementation (I'll update it for 2.6.17) detects
> real memory leaks. I suspect that a wide range of leaks would be
> covered if it is used on different platforms and different conditions.

btw., what leaks were found so far? I know about the ACPI one - any
other ones?

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-24 12:30    [W:0.090 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site