linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.35-rc6 patch] increase kmemleak robustness at boot

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]

Message-ID: <4C505F86.7050509@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:49:10 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
CC:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.35-rc6 patch] increase kmemleak robustness at boot

Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> I've consistently been experiencing kmemleak exhaust it's 400-entry
> early-boot buffer and disabling itself; there have been reports of
> this also, and I'm finding this on x86-64 with various debug options
> enabled.
> 
> If we issue a warning and allow the buffer to wrap, we don't need to
> hit the kill-switch. While we lose track of some early potential
> leaks, it's better than no functionality.
> 
> Let me know if it's acceptable, and many thanks for such an excellent tool,

Is it just potential leaks that we lose or can this cause false positives?
--
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/