linux-kernel - Re: Major slab mem leak with 2.6.17 / GCC 4.1.1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:44:11 +0100
From:	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@...il.com>
To:	"Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>
Cc:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"nmeyers@...tmark.com" <nmeyers@...tmark.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Major slab mem leak with 2.6.17 / GCC 4.1.1

On 16/10/06, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:07 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Kmemleak introduces some overhead but shouldn't be that bad.
> > DEBUG_SLAB also introduces an overhead by erasing the data in the
> > allocated blocks.
>
> 2.6.18 with your rc6 patch booted normally with stack unwind enabled.

The only difference is that kmemleak now uses save_stack_trace() to
generate the call chain. In the previous versions I implemented a
simple stack backtrace myself, with the disadvantage that it only
worked on ARM and x86.

I think kmemleak should use the common stack trace API and investigate
why it is slower (either save_stack_trace is slower with stack unwind
enabled or kmemleak doesn't use these functions properly).

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