From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E79C48BE8 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:25:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA616613EF for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:25:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231734AbhFPS1g (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:27:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50164 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231379AbhFPS1e (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:27:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 836EBC061574 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id x16so2853984pfa.13 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=BTmsE+92xrRcRnUpJMWS6o0+6/wbwvfCRpmMzrKD9ZE=; b=JL7xEMpRwJHDVBWIgNFYzRy3m1aVbJO09xI/NtfBc4gJlyc7L7mQJf1tCUq2jKWNN8 PZZmo9803amxI6dbXTa6J1eTb5VIztY/Vrq35A2WFaG4+tWM/KedcvT49YxGTO29BAjW iXGR+yB5SztAEXqt4k9NB8E1jMpdFNzvOYkXI/EgQl8z/7hQuPge7Mvr/CzqNVPNaoQE NMC9fkBUJRKq+DJGiWoiLjb1/B5LJSYTzzhlg0aPHGRefx9A28ZlnAiI6T3V6tw/CZZY Kz42Rnp0SyQLL2zp6Kj71v8GFNFF8hFJpvG6fnCFTPyiyYatlRE9vtEo3nKYhbA6xqCU rb+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=BTmsE+92xrRcRnUpJMWS6o0+6/wbwvfCRpmMzrKD9ZE=; b=UyXcUvCoAb5i5UYsJSv65gGQorbdIy8Zoe8aoeyUQHrdpITDM4ba9NE6ZRguIbuiw4 j6D9q7TCbIzDmTVfxKEuuhbGB73iWVv43THY9/imfEB7lR5dXBb89M2J4toTSjk95ZKL L7/p/cqEE/o/+ZfDzo7wNye6tSt8nM70vixZz9wQc59pvlFirdXLSscowGjTv80Ao9ot rg8f4JJueTPlsA1FNITMZd/Er5bACARSlfiRBVE1tVWWHfCu0TxVPxI4M2gO6gyWMYKj +V38TDKlCXdsJB3KQRMD+UKW2N9ZFcfpsBljJpLbtDWp96HFy3Fr3RtDY09IttxyMsnE 0ecQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oWC7zKCtbdDhQjdo2IrU0P9L/R0f5/f8qBvVtmzpYtB87XnCt VE4PmzJFX5YptugiGAzyWSE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkKS7dVl3+J070nSltDopnuD5OxEwP8XdWQod6/DkGvGggvhElYFFasXhn15t6jxLmMO+aOw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1d2:: with SMTP id 201mr931080pgb.3.1623867926988; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nuc10 (104.36.148.139.aurocloud.com. [104.36.148.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a11sm2707864pjq.45.2021.06.16.11.25.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:25:22 -0700 From: Rustam Kovhaev To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Catalin Marinas , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: kmemleak memory scanning Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:15:24AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:31 PM Rustam Kovhaev wrote: > > > > hello Catalin, Andrew! > > > > while troubleshooting a false positive syzbot kmemleak report i have > > noticed an interesting behavior in kmemleak and i wonder whether it is > > behavior by design and should be documented, or maybe something to > > improve. > > apologies if some of the questions do not make sense, i am still going > > through kmemleak code.. > > > > a) kmemleak scans struct page (kmemleak.c:1462), but it does not scan > > the actual contents (page_address(page)) of the page. > > if we allocate an object with kmalloc(), then allocate page with > > alloc_page(), and if we put kmalloc pointer somewhere inside that page, > > kmemleak will report kmalloc pointer as a false positive. > > should we improve kmemleak and make it scan page contents? > > or will this bring too many false negatives? > > Hi Rustam, > > Nice debugging! > I assume lots of pages are allocated for slab and we don't want to > scan the whole page if only a few slab objects are alive on the page. > However alloc_pages() can be called by end kernel code as well. > I grepped for any kmemleak annotations around existing calls to > alloc_pages, but did not find any... > Does it require an explicit kmemleak_alloc() after allocating the page > and kmemleak_free () before freeing the page? hi Dmitry, thank you! yes, as Catalin has pointed out, there are a few places where we call kmemleak_alloc()/kmemleak_free() explicitly in order for the pages to be scanned, like in blk_mq_alloc_rqs() > If there are more than one use case for this, I guess we could add > some GFP flag for this maybe. and this way kernel users won't have to use kmemleak fuctions mentioned above including some or most kmemleak_not_leak() calls and basically kmemleak will be kind of "transparent" to them? and they will only need to use the GFP flag to instruct kmemleak to scan the page contents? it sounds like a good idea to me..