linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net/core/neighbour: tell kmemleak about hash tables

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: <20190111105652.GA19375@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:56:53 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/core/neighbour: tell kmemleak about hash tables

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:26:09AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:45 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:30 AM Konstantin Khlebnikov
> > <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
> > > @@ -443,12 +444,14 @@ static struct neigh_hash_table *neigh_hash_alloc(unsigned int shift)
> > >         ret = kmalloc(sizeof(*ret), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > >         if (!ret)
> > >                 return NULL;
> > > -       if (size <= PAGE_SIZE)
> > > +       if (size <= PAGE_SIZE) {
> > >                 buckets = kzalloc(size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > -       else
> > > +       } else {
> > >                 buckets = (struct neighbour __rcu **)
> > >                           __get_free_pages(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO,
> > >                                            get_order(size));
> > > +               kmemleak_alloc(buckets, size, 0, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >
> > Why min_count is 0 rather than 1 here?
> 
> The api isn't clear and I've misread description.
> So it should be 1 for reporting leak of hash table itself.
> But 0 doesn't add any new issues.

Correct. I'd say it makes sense to set it to 1 so that you'd have
similar behaviour to the kzalloc() allocation.


-- 
Catalin