All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	 Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	 David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
	 "Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
	 Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	workflows@vger.kernel.org,  linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/mm: test kmemleak's N-consecutive-scan leak confirmation
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 08:43:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <akfYImSNDh3OjIfR@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <akfNeK7OOpvoZE9z@arm.com>

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 03:55:52PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > I understand we want to detect any change in any of these per cpu field and
> > catch it independent of the CPU. I am inclined toward that.
> > 
> > 	--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > 	+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > 	@@ -1409,8 +1409,9 @@ static bool update_checksum(struct kmemleak_object *object)
> > 			object->checksum = 0;
> > 			for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > 				void *ptr = per_cpu_ptr((void __percpu *)object->pointer, cpu);
> > 	+                       u32 seed = object->checksum + cpu;
> > 
> > 	-                       object->checksum ^= crc32(0, kasan_reset_tag((void *)ptr), object->size);
> > 	+                       object->checksum ^= crc32(seed, kasan_reset_tag((void *)ptr), object->size);
> 
> Yeah, the xor wasn't a great idea. What about initialising the checksum
> value on object allocation to ~0 (for the two-scans idea) and for
> per-cpu, just build the crc on top of the previous crc, something like:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> index 7c7ba17ce7af..e196f53f9b46 100644
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *__alloc_object(gfp_t gfp)
>  	atomic_set(&object->use_count, 1);
>  	object->excess_ref = 0;
>  	object->count = 0;			/* white color initially */
> -	object->checksum = 0;
> +	object->checksum = ~0;
>  	object->del_state = 0;
>  
>  	/* task information */
> @@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ static void reset_checksum(unsigned long ptr)
>  	}
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
> -	object->checksum = 0;
> +	object->checksum = ~0;
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
>  	put_object(object);
>  }
> @@ -1410,7 +1410,8 @@ static bool update_checksum(struct kmemleak_object *object)
>  		for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  			void *ptr = per_cpu_ptr((void __percpu *)object->pointer, cpu);
>  
> -			object->checksum ^= crc32(0, kasan_reset_tag((void *)ptr), object->size);
> +			object->checksum = crc32(object->checksum,
> +						 kasan_reset_tag((void *)ptr), object->size);
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		object->checksum = crc32(0, kasan_reset_tag((void *)object->pointer), object->size);

Ack, this seems more robust and easier to follow than my approach,
thanks for your insight here.

I will spin this "fix" separated (CCing stable), and send a v2 for this
selftest with priming enabled.

Thanks for your suggestion,
--breno

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-03 15:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-26 15:52 [PATCH 0/2] mm/kmemleak: add min_unref_scans to suppress transient false positives Breno Leitao
2026-06-26 15:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/kmemleak: report leaks only after N consecutive unreferenced scans Breno Leitao
2026-07-02  7:49   ` Catalin Marinas
2026-06-26 15:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/mm: test kmemleak's N-consecutive-scan leak confirmation Breno Leitao
2026-07-02  8:41   ` Catalin Marinas
2026-07-02 14:55     ` Breno Leitao
2026-07-03 11:24       ` Breno Leitao
2026-07-03 14:55         ` Catalin Marinas
2026-07-03 15:43           ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2026-07-03 17:11             ` Breno Leitao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=akfYImSNDh3OjIfR@gmail.com \
    --to=leitao@debian.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=liam@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    --cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.