archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rustam Kovhaev <>
To: Catalin Marinas <>
Cc: Andrew Morton <>,,,,
Subject: Re: kmemleak memory scanning
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:36:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMpEtyUP0vuWo9HV@nuc10> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

hi Catalin,

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:15:15AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Rustam,
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 01:31:14PM -0700, Rustam Kovhaev wrote:
> > 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?
> This is indeed on purpose otherwise (1) we'd get a lot of false
> negatives and (2) the scanning would take significantly longer. There
> are a lot more pages allocated for user processes than used in the
> kernel, we don't need to scan them all.
> We do have a few places where we explicitly call kmemleak_alloc():
> neigh_hash_alloc(), alloc_page_ext(), blk_mq_alloc_rqs(),
> early_amd_iommu_init().

makes sense, tyvm!

> > b) when kmemleak object gets created (kmemleak.c:598) it gets checksum
> > of 0, by the time user requests kmemleak "scan" via debugfs the pointer
> > will be most likely changed to some value by the kernel and during
> > first scan kmemleak won't report the object as orphan even if it did not
> > find any reference to it, because it will execute update_checksum() and
> > after that will proceed to updating object->count (kmemleak.c:1502).
> > and so the user will have to initiate a second "scan" via debugfs and
> > only then kmemleak will produce the report.
> > should we document this?
> That's a mitigation against false positives. Lot's of objects that get
> allocated just prior to a memory scan have a tendency to be reported as
> leaks before they get referenced via e.g. a list (and the in-object
> list_head structure updated). So you'd need to get the checksum
> identical in two consecutive scans to report it as a leak.
> We should probably document this.

thanks, i'll send a documentation patch for this

      reply	other threads:[~2021-06-16 18:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-14 20:31 kmemleak memory scanning Rustam Kovhaev
2021-06-15  5:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2021-06-16 18:25   ` Rustam Kovhaev
2021-06-24 17:36     ` Rustam Kovhaev
2021-06-25 15:01       ` Catalin Marinas
2021-06-25 15:27         ` Rustam Kovhaev
2021-06-25 15:36           ` Dmitry Vyukov
2021-06-15  8:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-06-16 18:27   ` Rustam Kovhaev
2021-06-15 10:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-06-16 18:36   ` Rustam Kovhaev [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YMpEtyUP0vuWo9HV@nuc10 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).