On 10/01/2014 05:27 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/01/2014 02:39 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:10:01PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> 2014-09-26 21:10 GMT+04:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can disable kasan instrumentation of this file as well. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but why? I don't think we need that. >>>> >>>> Just gut feeling. Such tools usually don't play well together. For >>>> example, due to asan quarantine lots of leaks will be missed (if we >>>> pretend that tools work together, end users will use them together and >>>> miss bugs). I won't be surprised if leak detector touches freed >>>> objects under some circumstances as well. >>>> We can do this if/when discover actual compatibility issues, of course. >>> >>> I think it's worth testing them together first. >>> >> >> I did test them together. With this patch applied both tools works without problems. > > What do you mean "works without problems"? Are you sure that kmemleak > still detects all leaks it is intended to detect? > Yes I'm sure about that. And how kasan could affect on kmemleak's capability to detect leaks? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>