public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized memory  (f6f6e1a4), by kmemleak's scan_block()
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:45 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1251189105.7261.4.camel@penberg-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1251188859.15678.6.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:08 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:04 +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > 2009/8/25 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
> > > > FYI, -tip testing triggered the following kmemcheck warning in
> > > > kmemleak:
> > > >
> > > > PM: Adding info for No Bus:vcsa7
> > > > WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized memory (f6f6e1a4)
> > > > d873f9f600000000c42ae4c1005c87f70000000070665f666978656400000000
> > > >  i i i i u u u u i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i u u u
> [...]
> > > Already the patch to make kmemcheck and kmemleak mutually exclusive is
> > > underway. It is not surprising that kmemleak is scanning uninitialized
> > > memory. But if you say that you have tried it before, it is strange
> > > that it didn't appear until now.
> > 
> > Why isn't it surprising? Yes, it's non-fatal for kmemleak to scan
> > uninitialized memory but we could be looking at non-initialized struct
> > member that's a bug waiting to happen elsewhere in the code (that
> > doesn't trigger often).
> 
> It isn't surprising to me either. Kmemleak scans the memory periodically
> but it cannot know whether such memory was initialised or not to avoid
> scanning it. So I would expect such warnings if both kmemleak and
> kmemcheck are enabled. Scanning uninitialised memory is fine with
> kmemleak, it just increases the number of false negatives (with
> SLAB_DEBUG enabled, however, the allocated blocks are pre-initialised).
> 
> So kmemleak and kmemcheck should be exclusive, unless there is a way for
> kmemleak to validate an address with kmemcheck before deciding whether
> to scan a memory block.

It's possible. Look at the kmemcheck_shadow_lookup() and
kmemcheck_shadow_test() calls in kmemcheck_read_strict(), for example.

Vegard, what do you think? I think making kmemcheck and kmemleak play
nice with each other is useful for people like Ingo who do automated
testing.

			Pekka


  reply	other threads:[~2009-08-25  8:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-08-25  7:19 WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized memory (f6f6e1a4), by kmemleak's scan_block() Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25  8:04 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-08-25  8:08   ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  8:27     ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-25  8:31       ` Pekka Enberg [this message]
2009-08-25  8:40         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25  8:48           ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  8:32   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25  8:45     ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  8:48       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25  8:54         ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  9:03           ` Vegard Nossum
2009-08-25  9:11             ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-25  9:15               ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  9:25                 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-25  9:11             ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  9:21               ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-25  9:26                 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  9:28                   ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-25  9:31                     ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-25  9:34                       ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-25  9:34                       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25 10:43                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25 13:57                           ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-26 10:48                         ` Pekka Enberg
2009-08-26 11:17                           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-25  9:25               ` Ingo Molnar

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=1251189105.7261.4.camel@penberg-laptop \
    --to=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.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