[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHkRjk5fuubEQaq2CD1cGE=W+Lf6svE6fN8KyDrY6=i3-=b_RA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:05:01 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@...driver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kmemleak/module: only scan the existed data section
On 28 December 2011 08:11, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@...driver.com> wrote:
> We should only scan the sections containing data and it's size is not
> zero as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@...driver.com>
> ---
> kernel/module.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index 12cfa2b..0b93c30 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -2045,6 +2045,8 @@ static void kmemleak_load_module(struct module *mod, Elf_Ehdr *hdr,
> if (strncmp(secstrings + sechdrs[i].sh_name, ".data", 5) != 0
> && strncmp(secstrings + sechdrs[i].sh_name, ".bss", 4) != 0)
> continue;
> + if (sechdrs[i].sh_size == 0)
> + continue;
>
> kmemleak_scan_area((void *)sechdrs[i].sh_addr,
> sechdrs[i].sh_size, GFP_KERNEL);
I would rather move this check to kmemleak.c. But why would it be
needed? Performance? A zero-size area shouldn't be scanned anyway.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists