Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: clear cfg80211_inform_bss() from kmemleak reports

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 02:21:40PM -0700, Luis Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 07:04 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 13:43 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:17:17AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > What I meant is it gobbles it up and spits another thing out. When it
> >> > > > gobbles it up the routine then uses kref_put().
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Why can it not track this?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It probably can, just not sure if it follows kref_put(), I was under
> >> > > > the impression here it doesn't and because of it we were getting false
> >> > > > positives. Catalin, can you confirm?
> >> > >
> >> > > Ah I'd think that if it can't track it then that's because we use a
> >> > > pointer to the middle of the struct to keep track of it much of the
> >> > > time.
> >> >
> >> > So you agree with the patch but not the commit log entry?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure -- I think kmemleak should be able to figure it out, and if
> >> you were using IBSS then we actually have a leak that we need to plug,
> >> but otherwise I'd prefer to get some more input from Catalin first.
> >
> > First of all, kmemleak_ignore() is not the right function to mark a
> > false positive as it completely ignores an object even though it may
> > have pointers to others. The kmemleak_not_leak() function should be
> > used. However, there are only two places in the kernel where this was
> > actually needed (one of them is a real leak but we ignore it as it makes
> > the code more complicated).
> >
> > So, I think we should try to figure out why kmemleak reports it. There
> > are a few common cases:
> >     1. transient false positive - this should disappear after a few
> >        scans
> >     2. a pointer leading to the reported object is stored in an area of
> >        memory not scanned by kmemleak - most commonly pages allocated
> >        explicitly (alloc_pages etc.) as kmemleak doesn't track these.
> >        The preferred solution is to inform kmemleak about such page
> >        (kmemleak_alloc/kmemleak_free) rather than marking the false
> >        positive
> >     3. a pointer leading to the reported object isn't actually pointing
> >        to anywhere inside the structure (i.e. using the physical
> >        address). Here we would use kmemleak_not_leak()
> 
> John please revert this merged patch
> (b563f91105758c35d7cd4589992198b9da52d579) on wireless-testing as we'd
> like to investigate further why we get this.
> 
> BTW I should
> not

This should be *note* :)

> I got this kmemleak report after using the clear
> command by painting objects black. I'll test it now with your
> suggested changes.

  Luis