On Thu 2016-12-08 11:48 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > While looking for early possible module loading failures I was > able to reproduce a memory leak possible with kmemleak. There > are a few rare ways to trigger a failure: > > o we've run into a failure while processing kernel parameters > (parse_args() returns an error) > o mod_sysfs_setup() fails > o we're a live patch module and copy_module_elf() fails > > Chances of running into this issue is really low. > > kmemleak splat: > > unreferenced object 0xffff9f2c4ada1b00 (size 32): > comm "kworker/u16:4", pid 82, jiffies 4294897636 (age 681.816s) > hex dump (first 32 bytes): > 6d 65 6d 73 74 69 63 6b 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 memstick0....... > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > backtrace: > [<ffffffff8c6cfeba>] kmemleak_alloc+0x4a/0xa0 > [<ffffffff8c200046>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x126/0x230 > [<ffffffff8c1bc581>] kstrdup+0x31/0x60 > [<ffffffff8c1bc5d4>] kstrdup_const+0x24/0x30 > [<ffffffff8c3c23aa>] kvasprintf_const+0x7a/0x90 > [<ffffffff8c3b5481>] kobject_set_name_vargs+0x21/0x90 > [<ffffffff8c4fbdd7>] dev_set_name+0x47/0x50 > [<ffffffffc07819e5>] memstick_check+0x95/0x33c [memstick] > [<ffffffff8c09c893>] process_one_work+0x1f3/0x4b0 > [<ffffffff8c09cb98>] worker_thread+0x48/0x4e0 > [<ffffffff8c0a2b79>] kthread+0xc9/0xe0 > [<ffffffff8c6dab5f>] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/module.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) Reviewed-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Aaron Tomlin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
