From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DECC2B9F4 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965F261942 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:28:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 965F261942 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7AEDC6B0036; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 75E606B005D; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:28:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6265C6B006C; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:28:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0249.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.249]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E586B0036 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin10.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A64C181AF5FD for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:28:05 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78292626930.10.1CF7FF2 Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com (mail-pl1-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194EE600014C for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:28:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id b3so4899162plg.2 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=sknCMKkRE/6+TRziL/nLaMcGUMQ1W7V3hpPpOph2UyI=; b=ljkuN8uKvvq0RlfQM/0l3qkDQ3HysP4yNNo32ZyOt93p6SxAVBmOM1kEkWcTCvsQMq fvvbYijD318W4X+Mb2CXZTVpfD2IuOVv0NaAEqSvmEqPda5fAi9yyHaeJwCUPZiJn+x5 cmTsODugZUeYc11K9CE2Kh1eT3/VdRwfcPECdT4oVTc3fmG2TLRPa/EJ7LhFDBIOC27n SRDrXpBDx6+79A02CnltRUioBgr5FsAVDGXMw5/O/ICFI8ZgsOghLkEjPQRzMXli/XfB wdqwCMWvzZ6FrJRfBHaNhrPz5WK6HHJE0v3MovSSdwVFMEcPRm6F9PrkvuOCIEG0eiwa vGuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=sknCMKkRE/6+TRziL/nLaMcGUMQ1W7V3hpPpOph2UyI=; b=t/7EU9pGs+xfwdMEoKZwCWCz9vcaDko6TtL3CCsIu8wbi++9JWdUXjQFkLrZ+LJZOG RkxOhW6dIWcNjZJKJM8CaiCDG6PlP/BA4sPFUF1nuQOh/Kwuet8RDrZ3zG9B7gfHhO31 gLLVgRULtel6SshFpUQf7xhmx6qQx+3Zr2KKp3YrR3qA7TKONcR81k0XyL0iq8HIBiRM c4YeaKyqu5JEW+spNtlczyMeoeC8XpoTybeBC9GYY4lO8N8HyowZyeL169z4sbn3agRh Sb8QaWIMKdTRIP9ExbKpztHN5qrXpDY2btHNNKTWMiNUla8TRW81pzjvovCSTfxCV+fP hCYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bcnifqmAgeofZvAHPv5XSPUbfPelEhP6WLowCZmNuklDmj/5V +10aiq24bM5p1mU6w1C/PX0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMI9uX/oyM5J7Z7jIdmBDIkF+cCiVotP8YvqmDkbj47kmbcKBsg7UjhNLOCpWY9b0JJihSAg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:300c:: with SMTP id hg12mr21684174pjb.46.1624634883938; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nuc10 (104.36.148.139.aurocloud.com. [104.36.148.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c2sm5685379pjv.10.2021.06.25.08.28.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:27:59 -0700 From: Rustam Kovhaev To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: kmemleak memory scanning Message-ID: References: <20210625150132.GF20835@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210625150132.GF20835@arm.com> Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ljkuN8uK; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of rkovhaev@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rkovhaev@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 194EE600014C X-Stat-Signature: s38sf1atu4dtpjryy41cn4kwohnf9ne5 X-HE-Tag: 1624634884-50592 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Catalin, On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 04:01:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:36:50AM -0700, Rustam Kovhaev wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:25:22AM -0700, Rustam Kovhaev wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:15:24AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:31 PM Rustam Kovhaev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hello Catalin, Andrew! > > > > > > > > > > while troubleshooting a false positive syzbot kmemleak report i have > > > > > noticed an interesting behavior in kmemleak and i wonder whether it is > > > > > behavior by design and should be documented, or maybe something to > > > > > improve. > > > > > apologies if some of the questions do not make sense, i am still going > > > > > through kmemleak code.. > > > > > > > > > > a) kmemleak scans struct page (kmemleak.c:1462), but it does not scan > > > > > the actual contents (page_address(page)) of the page. > > > > > if we allocate an object with kmalloc(), then allocate page with > > > > > alloc_page(), and if we put kmalloc pointer somewhere inside that page, > > > > > kmemleak will report kmalloc pointer as a false positive. > > > > > should we improve kmemleak and make it scan page contents? > > > > > or will this bring too many false negatives? > > > > > > > > Hi Rustam, > > > > > > > > Nice debugging! > > > > I assume lots of pages are allocated for slab and we don't want to > > > > scan the whole page if only a few slab objects are alive on the page. > > > > However alloc_pages() can be called by end kernel code as well. > > > > I grepped for any kmemleak annotations around existing calls to > > > > alloc_pages, but did not find any... > > > > Does it require an explicit kmemleak_alloc() after allocating the page > > > > and kmemleak_free () before freeing the page? > > > > > > hi Dmitry, thank you! > > > yes, as Catalin has pointed out, there are a few places where we call > > > kmemleak_alloc()/kmemleak_free() explicitly in order for the pages to be > > > scanned, like in blk_mq_alloc_rqs() > > > > > > > If there are more than one use case for this, I guess we could add > > > > some GFP flag for this maybe. > > > > > > and this way kernel users won't have to use kmemleak fuctions mentioned > > > above including some or most kmemleak_not_leak() calls and basically > > > kmemleak will be kind of "transparent" to them? and they will only need > > > to use the GFP flag to instruct kmemleak to scan the page contents? > > > it sounds like a good idea to me.. > > > > > > > i've been thinking about this and it seems like in the scenario where we > > want kmemleak to scan only some part of the page, we will have to either > > do separate alloc_page() calls with different flags or use > > kmemleak_scan_area() to limit the memory scan area. maybe this approach > > won't simplify things and will produce more code instead of reducing it > > Since page allocation is not tracked by kmemleak, you can always do an > explicit kmemleak_alloc() call with a smaller size than a full page. > right, but if i understood Dmitry's idea correctly, he was thinking about using a new GFP flag, like GFP_KMEMLEAK, and burying kmemleak_alloc() in page allocator