lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: V3.10-rc1 memory leak
From
Date
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 16:02 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 04:15:46AM +0100, Larry Finger wrote:
> > I do not see that particular one; however, I see 4 instances of
> >
> > unreferenced object 0xffff8800b7979750 (size 8):
> > comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294892402 (age 21888.316s)
> > hex dump (first 8 bytes):
> > 31 38 00 b7 00 88 ff ff 18......
> > backtrace:
> > [<ffffffff81432ea1>] kmemleak_alloc+0x21/0x50
> > [<ffffffff81145d50>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x140/0x2b0
> > [<ffffffff81119fb5>] kstrdup+0x35/0x70
> > [<ffffffff8125febc>] acpi_set_pnp_ids+0xd0/0x304
> > [<ffffffff81260c47>] acpi_scan_init_hotplug+0x47/0xa1
> > [<ffffffff81261223>] acpi_bus_check_add+0x66/0xd7
> > [<ffffffff8127877a>] acpi_ns_walk_namespace+0xb9/0x173
> > [<ffffffff81278bf3>] acpi_walk_namespace+0x93/0xc6
> > [<ffffffff812612dc>] acpi_bus_scan+0x48/0x9a
> > [<ffffffff818c983d>] acpi_scan_init+0x57/0x14b
> > [<ffffffff818c966a>] acpi_init+0x244/0x286
> > [<ffffffff810002fa>] do_one_initcall+0x10a/0x160
> > [<ffffffff8189cef0>] kernel_init_freeable+0x103/0x192
> > [<ffffffff814313a9>] kernel_init+0x9/0xf0
> > [<ffffffff8144992c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> >
> > All four were allocated early in the bootup, and are the only leaks reported in
> > my system. I have not yet tested to see if they are false.
>
> This looks to me like a real leak, possibly introduced by commit
> 6b772e8f9 (ACPI: Update PNPID match handling for notify). The
> acpi_scan_init_hotplug() function calls acpi_set_pnp_ids() which
> allocates pnp.unique_id (kstrdup()) but for some reason it fails and
> does not set pnp.type.hardware_id. The return does not call
> acpi_free_pnp_ids() which would be responsible for such freeing.

I agree with your analysis. It appears that this ACPI device object has
_UID but not _HID. ACPI spec defines that _UID is a unique ID among a
same _HID. So, it is odd to have _UID without _HID. But, nonetheless,
this case needs to be handled as such systems exist.

> Something like below, but not tested and may fail some NULL pointer
> checks:

The change looks good. acpi_free_pnp_ids() handles this empty list
pnp->ids properly. Are you going to submit this patch with your
signed-off?

Thanks!
-Toshi

> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index fe158fd..c1bc608 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1785,7 +1785,7 @@ static void acpi_scan_init_hotplug(acpi_handle handle, int type)
> acpi_set_pnp_ids(handle, &pnp, type);
>
> if (!pnp.type.hardware_id)
> - return;
> + goto out;
>
> /*
> * This relies on the fact that acpi_install_notify_handler() will not
> @@ -1800,6 +1800,7 @@ static void acpi_scan_init_hotplug(acpi_handle handle, int type)
> }
> }
>
> +out:
> acpi_free_pnp_ids(&pnp);
> }
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-15 18:41    [W:0.083 / U:2.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site