[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251191755.26351.4.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:15:55 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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 10:11 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Yes, that's possible.
>
> Does kmemcheck work on a page-range basis. If an object doesn't cross
> page boundaries, would it be considered fully initialised after writing
> a single location?
>
> > I think it would be better to ask kmemcheck on a per-pointer basis
> > (i.e. for each pointer-sized word in the object), whether it is
> > initialized or not.
>
> This should work but how expensive is this check?
Everything in kmemcheck is expensive :-). kmemcheck_shadow_lookup()
needs to do PTE lookup to find the shadow page where we record object
states. I'm not sure why that's a problem, though. If you've enabled
kmemcheck, everything is already dead slow and kmemleak scanning happens
in background, no? Furthermore, I think we need to do it the way Vegard
suggested to avoid false positives.
Pekka
--
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