From: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
To: "Harry Yoo" <harry@kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Alexander Potapenko" <glider@google.com>,
"Marco Elver" <elver@google.com>,
"Sumit Semwal" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
"Clark Williams" <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
"Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 3/5] mm/slab, kmemleak: handle kmemleak freeing in kfree_nolock()
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 15:50:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260807-kfree_nolock_kmalloc-v1-3-ba993cbf7a60@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260807-kfree_nolock_kmalloc-v1-0-ba993cbf7a60@kernel.org>
Kmemleak handling is one of the reasons why kfree_nolock() cannot
currently handle kmalloc() objects, because calling kmemleak_free()
would involve spinning on its internal raw spinlocks.
Kmemleak is a debugging mechanism so we could simply defer all
kfree_nolock() to irq_work if it's enabled, and eat the extra cost. But
that would be unnecessary pessimistic. We expect kfree_nolock() will be
still mostly called on objects from kmalloc_nolock() that are not
registered in kmemleak so they still don't need any deferred freeing.
Thus introduce kmemleak_may_need_free() that can check if the object is
registered. This is done using __lookup_object() performed under a
raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(), which is safe to attempt from kfree_nolock()
(except from a NMI on a !CONFIG_SMP system). When that trylock fails or
can't be attempted, we however must assume the object might be
registered, and defer the freeing.
The ordering of kmsan/kasan handling and kmemleak is also different from
what kfree() is doing, but as explained in the comment, it should be OK.
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/kmemleak.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
mm/kmemleak.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
mm/slub.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/kmemleak.h b/include/linux/kmemleak.h
index fbd424b2abb1..52f75f10a9ce 100644
--- a/include/linux/kmemleak.h
+++ b/include/linux/kmemleak.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern void kmemleak_alloc_percpu(const void __percpu *ptr, size_t size,
extern void kmemleak_vmalloc(const struct vm_struct *area, size_t size,
gfp_t gfp) __ref;
extern void kmemleak_free(const void *ptr) __ref;
+bool kmemleak_may_need_free(const void *ptr) __ref;
extern void kmemleak_free_part(const void *ptr, size_t size) __ref;
extern void kmemleak_free_percpu(const void __percpu *ptr) __ref;
extern void kmemleak_update_trace(const void *ptr) __ref;
@@ -50,6 +51,14 @@ static inline void kmemleak_free_recursive(const void *ptr, slab_flags_t flags)
kmemleak_free(ptr);
}
+static inline bool kmemleak_may_need_free_recursive(const void *ptr, slab_flags_t flags)
+{
+ if (!(flags & SLAB_NOLEAKTRACE))
+ return kmemleak_may_need_free(ptr);
+
+ return false;
+}
+
static inline void kmemleak_erase(void **ptr)
{
*ptr = NULL;
@@ -86,6 +95,14 @@ static inline void kmemleak_free_part(const void *ptr, size_t size)
static inline void kmemleak_free_recursive(const void *ptr, slab_flags_t flags)
{
}
+static inline bool kmemleak_may_need_free(const void *ptr)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+static inline bool kmemleak_may_need_free_recursive(const void *ptr, slab_flags_t flags)
+{
+ return false;
+}
static inline void kmemleak_free_percpu(const void __percpu *ptr)
{
}
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index 7c7ba17ce7af..e3560ce82632 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -1168,6 +1168,48 @@ void __ref kmemleak_free(const void *ptr)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kmemleak_free);
+/**
+ * kmemleak_may_need_free - check if object is registered
+ * @ptr: pointer to beginning of the object
+ *
+ * This function is called from the kernel allocator when an object should be
+ * freed but the caller context might be unsafe to spin on the internal locks.
+ *
+ * It will therefore only use trylock and thus might return a false positive
+ * if the trylock fails and the status cannot be determined.
+ *
+ * For objects that (might) need free, the allocator has to defer the actual
+ * freeing to a safe context.
+ *
+ * The assumption is that most objects freed from the unsafe context are also
+ * allocated in such context and thus are not registered in kmemleak, so it's
+ * unlikely the defered freeing will be necessary just because kmemleak is
+ * enabled.
+ */
+bool __ref kmemleak_may_need_free(const void *ptr)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ struct kmemleak_object *object;
+
+ pr_debug("%s(0x%px)\n", __func__, ptr);
+
+ if (!kmemleak_free_enabled || !ptr || IS_ERR(ptr))
+ return false;
+
+ /* On UP, raw_spin_trylock() always succeeds even when it is locked */
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) && in_nmi())
+ return true;
+
+ if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&kmemleak_lock, flags))
+ return true;
+
+ object = __lookup_object((unsigned long)ptr, 0, 0);
+
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kmemleak_lock, flags);
+
+ return !!object;
+}
+
/**
* kmemleak_free_part - partially unregister a previously registered object
* @ptr: pointer to the beginning or inside the object. This also
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 2d7648b96bfa..423b5bdb910b 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -6390,6 +6390,8 @@ static void deferred_percpu_work_fn(struct irq_work *work)
/* Point 'x' back to the beginning of allocated object */
x -= s->offset;
+ kmemleak_free_recursive(x, s->flags);
+
/*
* We used freepointer in 'x' to link 'x' into df->objects.
* Clear it to NULL to avoid false positive detection
@@ -6403,8 +6405,15 @@ static void deferred_percpu_work_fn(struct irq_work *work)
llnode = llist_del_all(&dpw->objects_kfence);
llist_for_each_safe(pos, t, llnode) {
+ struct kmem_cache *s;
+ struct slab *slab;
void *obj = kfence_llnode_to_obj(pos);
+ slab = virt_to_slab(obj);
+ s = slab->slab_cache;
+
+ kmemleak_free_recursive(obj, s->flags);
+
__kfence_free(obj);
}
@@ -6781,15 +6790,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfree);
/*
* Can be called while holding raw_spinlock_t or from IRQ and NMI,
- * but ONLY for objects allocated by kmalloc_nolock().
- *
- * In case kmemleak is enabled,
+ * but may defer freeing to irq_work() in some cases.
*
- * obj = kmalloc(); kfree_nolock(obj);
- *
- * will miss kmemleak book keeping and will cause false positives.
- *
- * large_kmalloc is not supported either.
+ * Intended mainly for objects allocated from kmalloc_nolock(), but can handle
+ * also kmem_cache_alloc() and kmalloc() objects, except large_kmalloc.
*/
void kfree_nolock(const void *object)
{
@@ -6844,9 +6848,23 @@ void kfree_nolock(const void *object)
*/
kasan_slab_free(s, x, false, false, /* skip quarantine */true);
+ /*
+ * with kfree() the kmemleak handling happens much sooner, but for
+ * defering we need to write llnode to the object's freepointer so
+ * we should have it in the state when it's no longer treated as
+ * allocated by kasan etc.
+ *
+ * defer_free will also reset the pointer tag, but it's ok to do a
+ * deferred kmemleak_free() using the untagged pointer, because
+ * __lookup_object() resets the tag anyway
+ */
+ if (unlikely(kmemleak_may_need_free_recursive(x, s->flags)))
+ goto defer;
+
if (likely(can_free_to_pcs(slab)) && likely(free_to_pcs(s, x, false)))
return;
+defer:
/*
* __slab_free() can locklessly cmpxchg16 into a slab, but then it might
* need to take spin_lock for further processing.
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-07 13:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-07 13:50 [PATCH RFC 0/5] allow kfree_nolock() handle kmalloc() objects Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-08-07 13:50 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] mm/slab: cleanup deferred free handling Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-08-07 13:50 ` [PATCH RFC 2/5] mm/slab, kfence: support kfence objects in kfree_nolock() Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-08-07 13:50 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) [this message]
2026-08-07 13:50 ` [PATCH RFC 4/5] mm/slab: handle large_kmalloc " Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-08-07 13:50 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] sched: use kfree_nolock() instead of kfree_rcu() Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
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=20260807-kfree_nolock_kmalloc-v1-3-ba993cbf7a60@kernel.org \
--to=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=hao.li@linux.dev \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox