linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: kmemleak: check physical address when scan

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]

Date:   Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:46:27 +0800
From:   Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yee.lee@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: kmemleak: check physical address when scan



On 2022/6/10 02:16, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 08:49:50PM +0800, Patrick Wang wrote:
>> Check the physical address of objects for its boundary
>> when scan instead of in kmemleak_*_phys().
>>
>> Fixes: 23c2d497de21 ("mm: kmemleak: take a full lowmem check in kmemleak_*_phys()")
>> Suggested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> 
> The fixed commit above was cc stable, so we'll probably need all these
> three patches in stable. But I'd keep them a bit in -next for testing
> first (and I see Andrew already picked them up; we might as well merge
> them in 5.20 and send them to -stable after, it's not some critical
> feature).
> 
> Thanks for the series. I don't think you need to respin unless others of
> comments.

I've received an auto build test WARNING from kernel test robot:

    mm/kmemleak.c: In function 'scan_object':
   >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h:215:42: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
        215 | #define __va(x) ((void *)(unsigned long)((phys_addr_t)(x) + VIRT_PHYS_OFFSET))
            |                                          ^
      mm/kmemleak.c:1403:19: note: in expansion of macro '__va'
       1403 |                   __va((void *)object->pointer) :
            |                   ^~~~

So I will replace __va((void *)object->pointer)
to __va((phys_addr_t)object->pointer) for fixing this warning,
and move the prototype change and the kmemleak_not_leak_phys()
removal to a separate one as you suggested at the same time.

Thanks for these comments and suggestions.

Thanks,
Patrick