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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C53F01A.8090205@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:42:50 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@...il.com>
CC:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.35-rc6 patch] increase kmemleak robustness at boot

Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> Right. I guess the required earlylog buffer size would be smaller if
>> we initialized kmemleak earlier. Can we do that in mm_init() after
>> kmem_cache_init()?
> 
> Kmemleak uses kmem_cache_alloc() internally so we could initialise it
> as soon as kmem_cache_init() was called. But it's really strange the
> amount of early allocations that Daniel is getting. I've been happy so
> far with 400, usually with standard Ubuntu-like configs and some
> debugging turned on. Any idea what's causing these allocations?

No idea. I wonder if kmemleak can dump out the call-sites for the 
overflow case somehow to see what's going on?

			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/