linux-kernel - Re: Question about memory leak detector giving false positive report for net/core/flow.c

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: <20110926165024.GA21617@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:50:24 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Huajun Li <huajun.li.lee@...il.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Question about memory leak detector giving false positive
 report for net/core/flow.c

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:32:54PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 26 septembre 2011 à 23:17 +0800, Huajun Li a écrit :
> > Memory leak detector gives following memory leak report, it seems the
> > report is triggered by net/core/flow.c, but actually, it should be a
> > false positive report.
> > So, is there any idea from kmemleak side to fix/disable this false
> > positive report like this?
> > Yes, kmemleak_not_leak(...) could disable it, but is it suitable for this case ?
...
> CC lkml and percpu maintainers (Tejun Heo & Christoph Lameter ) as well
> 
> AFAIK this false positive only occurs if percpu data is allocated
> outside of embedded pcu space. 
> 
>  (grep pcpu_get_vm_areas /proc/vmallocinfo)
> 
> I suspect this is a percpu/kmemleak cooperation problem (a missing
> kmemleak_alloc() ?)
> 
> I am pretty sure kmemleak_not_leak() is not the right answer to this
> problem.

kmemleak_not_leak() definitely not the write answer. The alloc_percpu()
call does not have any kmemleak_alloc() callback, so it doesn't scan
them.

Huajun, could you please try the patch below:

8<--------------------------------
kmemleak: Handle percpu memory allocation

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>

This patch adds kmemleak callbacks from the percpu allocator, reducing a
number of false positives caused by kmemleak not scanning such memory
blocks.

Reported-by: Huajun Li <huajun.li.lee@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
---
 mm/percpu.c |   11 +++++++++--
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index bf80e55..c47a90b 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
 
 #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
 #include <asm/sections.h>
@@ -833,7 +834,9 @@ fail_unlock_mutex:
  */
 void __percpu *__alloc_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
 {
-	return pcpu_alloc(size, align, false);
+	void __percpu *ptr = pcpu_alloc(size, align, false);
+	kmemleak_alloc(ptr, size, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	return ptr;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__alloc_percpu);
 
@@ -855,7 +858,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__alloc_percpu);
  */
 void __percpu *__alloc_reserved_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
 {
-	return pcpu_alloc(size, align, true);
+	void __percpu *ptr = pcpu_alloc(size, align, true);
+	kmemleak_alloc(ptr, size, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	return ptr;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -915,6 +920,8 @@ void free_percpu(void __percpu *ptr)
 	if (!ptr)
 		return;
 
+	kmemleak_free(ptr);
+
 	addr = __pcpu_ptr_to_addr(ptr);
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);

-- 
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/