lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.28-rc5 03/11] kmemleak: Add the memory allocation/freeing hooks
From
Date
Hi Catalin,

On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 11:07 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Pekka,
>
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 21:30 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > @@ -2610,6 +2611,9 @@ static struct slab *alloc_slabmgmt(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp,
> > > /* Slab management obj is off-slab. */
> > > slabp = kmem_cache_alloc_node(cachep->slabp_cache,
> > > local_flags & ~GFP_THISNODE, nodeid);
> > > + /* only scan the list member to avoid false negatives */
> > > + memleak_scan_area(slabp, offsetof(struct slab, list),
> > > + sizeof(struct list_head));
> >
> > I find this comment somewhat confusing. Does it mean we _must_ scan
> > the list members to avoid false negatives (i.e. leaks that happened
> > but were not reported) or that if we scan the whole of struct slab, we
> > get false negatives?
>
> It's been some time since I first added this and I may not remember the
> full details but it's the latter case - it should avoid scanning
> slabp->s_mem because (my understanding) is that it may contain a pointer
> to an allocated block. Kmemleak only allows adding what sections to
> scan, so in this case only the list_head is relevant.
>
> Let me know if my understanding is correct and I'll make the comment
> more clear.

Well, slab->s_mem simply points to the slab (i.e. page) itself. So I
suppose we need to ignore ->s_mem to avoid scanning the same slab twice?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-24 09:19    [W:0.110 / U:2.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site