Re: [PATCH v4] kmemleak: survive in a low-memory situation

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:05:31AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 27/03/2019 2.59, Qian Cai wrote:
> > Unless there is a brave soul to reimplement the kmemleak to embed it's
> > metadata into the tracked memory itself in a foreseeable future, this
> > provides a good balance between enabling kmemleak in a low-memory
> > situation and not introducing too much hackiness into the existing
> > code for now.
> 
> Unfortunately I am not that brave soul, but I'm wondering what the
> complication here is? It shouldn't be too hard to teach calculate_sizes() in
> SLUB about a new SLAB_KMEMLEAK flag that reserves spaces for the metadata.

I don't think it's the calculate_sizes() that's the hard part. The way
kmemleak is designed assumes that the metadata has a longer lifespan
than the slab object it is tracking (and refcounted via
get_object/put_object()). We'd have to replace some of the
rcu_read_(un)lock() regions with a full kmemleak_lock together with a
few more tweaks to allow the release of kmemleak_lock during memory
scanning (which can take minutes; so it needs to be safe w.r.t. metadata
freeing, currently relying on a deferred RCU freeing).

Anyway, I think it is possible, just not straight forward.

-- 
Catalin