From: Hiroshi DOYU <Hiroshi.DOYU@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:34:58 +0300 (EEST) > 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. Ok, I understand now. Please ignore my previous. I'll try the above. -- 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
