From: ext Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:01:24 +0200 > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay, I eventually got the time to look at your patches. Thank you for your review. > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:25 +0100, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: >> There is a false positive case that a pointer is calculated by other >> methods than the usual container_of macro. "kmemleak_ignore" can cover >> such a false positive, but it would loose the advantage of memory leak >> detection. This patch allows kmemleak to work with such false >> positives by introducing a new special memory block with a specified >> calculation formula. A client module can register its area with a >> conversion function, with which function kmemleak scan could calculate >> a correct pointer. > > While something needs to be done to cover these situations, I'm not so > convinced about the method as it complicates the code requiring such > conversion by having to insert two kmemleak hooks and a callback > function. > > Can we not add a new prio tree (or just use the existing one) for > pointer aliases? The advantage is that you only have a single function > to call, something like kmemleak_add_alias() and you do it at the point > the value was converted. Actually I considered the above aliasing a little bit but I gave up soon. I was afraid that this method might consume way more memory since this just adds another member for "struct kmemleak_object", but adding a single member for all objects. The number of kmemleak_object is usually numerous. Do you think that this increase of memory consumption is acceptable? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
