From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751843Ab1IZIFw (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:05:52 -0400 Received: from peace.netnation.com ([204.174.223.2]:50494 "EHLO peace.netnation.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751149Ab1IZIFv (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:05:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:05:50 -0700 From: Simon Kirby To: Borislav Petkov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [3.1-rc6] kmalloc(64) leak from IDE Message-ID: <20110926080549.GA14697@hostway.ca> References: <20110922072643.GA27232@hostway.ca> <20110922084811.GC17640@liondog.tnic> <20110922202337.GB32661@hostway.ca> <20110923072118.GA13293@liondog.tnic> <20110923173808.GB26481@hostway.ca> <20110925085818.GA10947@liondog.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110925085818.GA10947@liondog.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:58:18AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:38:08AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:18AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:23:37PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: > > > > Yes, that seems to have made it stop complaining about the IDE path. > > > > > > Good, thanks for testing. It would be great if you left it running for > > > a couple of days like this to see whether there aren't any other issues > > > with the patch. I'll send it with a proper description to Dave soonish > > > since this is a real bug. > > > > It has been up 22 hours now without breaking. > > Good. > > > I suppose you're worried about the old command being used after it > > gets reused. > > Nah, we clear the old command before reusing it and when the request is > done, it gets freed, AFAICT, but... Ok, good. It's still running without any problem, and no new leaks reported. > > Would it help to bisect the regression to see how it used to work? > > That would let us know how many stable kernels to patch, too. > > backporting it to -stable is a good point. I'll add the proper tagging > to the patch. Do you know in which version the issue started, then? If not, all I have to start with is that it was fine on 2.6.36, and I can bisect it, if that would help. Cheers, Simon-