[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJpcGLju6LsdPfQrXVuC-=F8jD=h+WYLk1Em2UVG9Ojjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:26:39 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:
> kmemleak doesn't complain if we save it to a global. That makes sense
> because it means that we have a persistent reference to the allocated
> memory.
>
> However, kmemleak doesn't complain about this allocation as-is (meaning
> that I simply removed the call to kmemleak_not_leak()). From what I can
> tell, this is because a reference to the allocated ctl_table_header
> struct is saved when __register_sysctl_table() calls init_header(). I
> think kmemleak is seeing this reference when doing scans and
> (incorrectly) thinking that there's no leak.
>
> I think the safest/cleanest thing to do is leave the call to
> kmemleak_not_leak(). Let me know if you disagree.
Okay, that's cool. :) Thanks for checking!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists