[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251190466.7261.12.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:54:26 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized
memory (f6f6e1a4), by kmemleak's scan_block()
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > In any case, I don't think it is very productive to run them both
> > > > at the same time, simply because kmemcheck slows every memory
> > > > access down so much and scanning memory doesn't exactly help that.
> > > > It _could_ be useful to have them compiled into the same kernel,
> > > > though, e.g. a distro "-debug" kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you can just add the "depends on !KMEMLEAK" to
> > > > CONFIG_KMEMCHECK in tip/out-of-tree for now?
> > >
> > > i think it would be far more intelligent to annotate those accesses
> > > by kmemleak as 'trust me, dont check'. Willing to test such a patch.
> >
> > I guess something like this totally untested patch should do it.
> > Vegard, Catalin?
>
> Looks good - but doesnt apply cleanly to -tip because i picked up a
> number of kmemleak patches into tip:out-of-tree for testing - so
> i'll leave it up for Vegard/Catalin to do a blessed version of it
> against the kmemleak tree - which i hope will apply fine to tip too
> :)
I thik this should be fine for -tip.
Pekka
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c
index 2c55ed0..528bf95 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c
@@ -331,6 +331,20 @@ static void kmemcheck_read_strict(struct pt_regs *regs,
kmemcheck_shadow_set(shadow, size);
}
+bool kmemcheck_is_obj_initialized(unsigned long addr, size_t size)
+{
+ enum kmemcheck_shadow status;
+ void *shadow;
+
+ shadow = kmemcheck_shadow_lookup(addr);
+ if (!shadow)
+ return true;
+
+ status = kmemcheck_shadow_test(shadow, size);
+
+ return status == KMEMCHECK_SHADOW_INITIALIZED;
+}
+
/* Access may cross page boundary */
static void kmemcheck_read(struct pt_regs *regs,
unsigned long addr, unsigned int size)
diff --git a/include/linux/kmemcheck.h b/include/linux/kmemcheck.h
index 47b39b7..dc2fd54 100644
--- a/include/linux/kmemcheck.h
+++ b/include/linux/kmemcheck.h
@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ void kmemcheck_mark_initialized_pages(struct page *p, unsigned int n);
int kmemcheck_show_addr(unsigned long address);
int kmemcheck_hide_addr(unsigned long address);
+bool kmemcheck_is_obj_initialized(unsigned long addr, size_t size);
+
#else
#define kmemcheck_enabled 0
@@ -99,6 +101,11 @@ static inline void kmemcheck_mark_initialized_pages(struct page *p,
{
}
+static inline bool kmemcheck_is_obj_initialized(unsigned long addr, size_t size)
+{
+ return true;
+}
+
#endif /* CONFIG_KMEMCHECK */
/*
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index 6debe0d..73947e4 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@
#include <asm/processor.h>
#include <asm/atomic.h>
+#include <linux/kmemcheck.h>
#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
/*
@@ -951,6 +952,8 @@ static void scan_object(struct kmemleak_object *object)
if (!(object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED))
/* already freed object */
goto out;
+ if (!kmemcheck_is_obj_initialized(object->pointer, object->size))
+ goto out;
if (hlist_empty(&object->area_list)) {
void *start = (void *)object->pointer;
void *end = (void *)(object->pointer + object->size);
--
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