| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0612170358r2b1ff36bi31270806b5ce1b53@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:58:49 +0000 From: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@...il.com> To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc1 00/10] Kernel memory leak detector 0.13 On 17/12/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: > one more thing: after bootup i need to access the /debug/memleak file > twice to get any output from it - is that normal? The first 'cat > /debug/memleak' gives no output (but there's the usual scanning delay, > so memleak does do its work). Yes, this is normal. Especially on SMP, I get some transient reports, probably caused by pointers hold in registers (even more visible on ARM due to the bigger number of registers per CPU). Reporting a leak only if it was seen at least once before greatly reduces the false positives (this is configurable as well but I'll drop the configuration option). Without this, you could see that, at every scan, the reported pointers are different. Some people testing kmemleak used to read the /debug/memleak file periodically from a script and this wasn't noticeable. It would be even better if, as you suggested, I schedule a periodic memory scanning. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists