linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:14:01 +0900
From:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Sankar P <sankar.curiosity@...il.com>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lrodriguez@...eros.com, rnagarajan@...ell.com, teheo@...ell.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:31 +0100, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:16:43PM +0530, Sankar P wrote:
> > > If we try to find the memory leaks in kernel that is
> > > compiled with 'make defconfig', the default buffer size
> > > of DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_EARLY_LOG_SIZE seem to be inadequate.
> > >
> > > Change the buffer size from 400 to 1000,
> > > which is sufficient for most cases.
> > >
> > Or you could just bump it up in your config where you seem to be hitting
> > this problem. The default of 400 is sufficient for most people, so
> > bloating it up for a corner case seems a bit premature. Perhaps
> > eventually we'll have no choice and have to tolerate the bloat, as we did
> > with LOG_BUF_SHIFT, but it's not obvious that we've hit that point with
> > kmemleak yet.
> 
> I agree. The 400 seems to be sufficient with standard kernel
> configurations (I usually try some of the Ubuntu configs on x86). The
> error message is hopefully clear enough about what needs to be changed.
> 
> The defconfig change for this specific platform may be a better option
> but I thought defconfigs are to provide a stable (and maybe close to
> optimal) configuration without all the debugging features enabled
> (especially those slowing things down considerably).
> 
I would be fine with that, but I don't see any correlation between the
posted dmesg and the defconfig? I've run the config in question without
hitting problems, so I'm a bit confused as to why that particular config
was singled out.
--
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/