Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There are some possible kernel memory leaks discovered by kmemleak. I > didn't have time for investigating them. Please let me know if they are > not leaks so that I can improve kmemleak (or just add a false alarm call): [...] > - acpi_ev_execute_reg_method in drivers/acpi/events/evregion.c - I'm not > sure about this but kmemleak reports an orphan pointer on the following > allocation path: > c0159372: <kmem_cache_alloc> > c01ffa07: <acpi_os_acquire_object> > c0215b3a: <acpi_ut_allocate_object_desc_dbg> > c02159ce: <acpi_ut_create_internal_object_dbg> > c0203784: <acpi_ev_execute_reg_method> > c0203db4: <acpi_ev_reg_run> > c020ed17: <acpi_ns_walk_namespace> > c0203d6b: <acpi_ev_execute_reg_methods> > Is acpi_ut_remove_reference actually removing the params[0/1]? After a quick check, the reference counts after the acpi_ns_evaluate_by_handle() call in acpi_ev_execute_reg_method look like this (they were both 1 before this call): params[0]->common.reference_count = 1 params[1]->common.reference_count = 2 and therefore acpi_ut_remove_reference() doesn't free params[1]. Kmemleak, however, cannot find the params[1] value while scanning the memory and therefore reports it as a leak. Is this normal behaviour for the acpi_ev_execute_reg_method function? There isn't anything obvious looking at the calling tree (which I would say is pretty complex). -- Catalin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
