More odd kmemleak traces.

More odd kmemleak traces.

[Dave Jones]

I see a bunch of kmemleak traces on one of my machines.
These traces all seem to be early allocations during boot up,
and I don't see anything obvious from the traces to figure out what
we're leaking.  False positives?

Lots of these...

kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xdb9fde70 (size 40):
kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294668061
kmemleak:   backtrace:
kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
kmemleak:     [<c04f5e73>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x11e/0x174
kmemleak:     [<c066c901>] acpi_ut_allocate_object_desc_dbg+0x46/0x89
kmemleak:     [<c066c975>] acpi_ut_create_internal_object_dbg+0x31/0x9c
kmemleak:     [<c065441c>] acpi_ds_build_internal_object+0xfc/0x150
kmemleak:     [<c0654699>] acpi_ds_build_internal_package_obj+0xf4/0x19b
kmemleak:     [<c0652cbd>] acpi_ds_eval_data_object_operands+0xbb/0xfb
kmemleak:     [<c0653928>] acpi_ds_exec_end_op+0x246/0x37e
kmemleak:     [<c0665fa5>] acpi_ps_parse_loop+0x5e5/0x740
kmemleak:     [<c066532f>] acpi_ps_parse_aml+0x9a/0x2a5
kmemleak:     [<c065325a>] acpi_ds_execute_arguments+0x102/0x134
kmemleak:     [<c0653346>] acpi_ds_get_package_arguments+0x51/0x65
kmemleak:     [<c0663920>] acpi_ns_init_one_object+0xbb/0x10b
kmemleak:     [<c0663ed7>] acpi_ns_walk_namespace+0xbd/0x133
kmemleak:     [<c0661c8e>] acpi_walk_namespace+0x74/0xaf
kmemleak:     [<c0663831>] acpi_ns_initialize_objects+0x36/0x6a

And a few of these in pnp..

kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xd9d0db40 (size 16):
kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294674288
kmemleak:   backtrace:
kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
kmemleak:     [<c04f5c89>] kmem_cache_alloc_notrace+0x121/0x13d
kmemleak:     [<c067b9da>] reserve_range+0x4a/0x177
kmemleak:     [<c067bba5>] system_pnp_probe+0x9e/0xcd
kmemleak:     [<c0676c30>] pnp_device_probe+0x91/0xc1
kmemleak:     [<c06b7f24>] driver_probe_device+0xca/0x1d9
kmemleak:     [<c06b8089>] __driver_attach+0x56/0x84
kmemleak:     [<c06b7350>] bus_for_each_dev+0x53/0x8e
kmemleak:     [<c06b7ca1>] driver_attach+0x27/0x3a
kmemleak:     [<c06b793b>] bus_add_driver+0xde/0x233
kmemleak:     [<c06b83d8>] driver_register+0x89/0xfe
kmemleak:     [<c067698f>] pnp_register_driver+0x2b/0x3e
kmemleak:     [<c0ab6985>] pnp_system_init+0x1b/0x2e
kmemleak:     [<c040309e>] do_one_initcall+0x75/0x193
kmemleak:     [<c0a86525>] kernel_init+0x1af/0x211
kmemleak:     [<c040b5df>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xd9d8c9a0 (size 64):
kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294674288
kmemleak:   backtrace:
kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
kmemleak:     [<c04f5c89>] kmem_cache_alloc_notrace+0x121/0x13d
kmemleak:     [<c0453d29>] __request_region+0x49/0x175
kmemleak:     [<c067ba8c>] reserve_range+0xfc/0x177
kmemleak:     [<c067bba5>] system_pnp_probe+0x9e/0xcd
kmemleak:     [<c0676c30>] pnp_device_probe+0x91/0xc1
kmemleak:     [<c06b7f24>] driver_probe_device+0xca/0x1d9
kmemleak:     [<c06b8089>] __driver_attach+0x56/0x84
kmemleak:     [<c06b7350>] bus_for_each_dev+0x53/0x8e
kmemleak:     [<c06b7ca1>] driver_attach+0x27/0x3a
kmemleak:     [<c06b793b>] bus_add_driver+0xde/0x233
kmemleak:     [<c06b83d8>] driver_register+0x89/0xfe
kmemleak:     [<c067698f>] pnp_register_driver+0x2b/0x3e
kmemleak:     [<c0ab6985>] pnp_system_init+0x1b/0x2e
kmemleak:     [<c040309e>] do_one_initcall+0x75/0x193
kmemleak:     [<c0a86525>] kernel_init+0x1af/0x211

and lots of the one I already reported ..

kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xdb804080 (size 20):
kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 0, jiffies 4294667296
kmemleak:   backtrace:
kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
kmemleak:     [<c04f5e73>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x11e/0x174
kmemleak:     [<c0aae5a7>] debug_objects_mem_init+0x63/0x1d9
kmemleak:     [<c0a86a62>] start_kernel+0x2da/0x38d
kmemleak:     [<c0a86090>] i386_start_kernel+0x7f/0x98
kmemleak:     [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff


	Dave

Re: More odd kmemleak traces.

[Catalin Marinas]

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 20:34 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> I see a bunch of kmemleak traces on one of my machines.
> These traces all seem to be early allocations during boot up,
> and I don't see anything obvious from the traces to figure out what
> we're leaking.  False positives?
> 
> Lots of these...
> 
> kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xdb9fde70 (size 40):
> kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294668061
> kmemleak:   backtrace:
> kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
> kmemleak:     [<c04f5e73>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x11e/0x174
> kmemleak:     [<c066c901>] acpi_ut_allocate_object_desc_dbg+0x46/0x89
[...]

As I said in the previous e-mail, could you enable stack scanning with

echo "stack=on" > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak

and then cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak? This should reduce the false
positives quite a lot (but with the risk of more false negatives). The
leaked objects may also be found at a subsequent scan and then kmemleak
reports "referenced object ...".

IIRC, there were some leaks in ACPI code in the past as well but the
code is too complex to be able to check whether they are real or not.

If an object is consistently reported as unreferenced in the
debug/kmemleak file, it means that it wasn't freed and it's pointer
cannot be found. The debug method I use is to try to find where the
pointer is stored in the call path and whether it is still there or not.
Usually one leak in the top part could trigger subsequent reports so
only the first ones may need to be investigated (they are always
reported in the order they were allocated).

> And a few of these in pnp..
> 
> kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xd9d0db40 (size 16):
> kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294674288
> kmemleak:   backtrace:
> kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
> kmemleak:     [<c04f5c89>] kmem_cache_alloc_notrace+0x121/0x13d
> kmemleak:     [<c067b9da>] reserve_range+0x4a/0x177
> kmemleak:     [<c067bba5>] system_pnp_probe+0x9e/0xcd
> kmemleak:     [<c0676c30>] pnp_device_probe+0x91/0xc1
[...]
> kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xd9d8c9a0 (size 64):
> kmemleak:   comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294674288
> kmemleak:   backtrace:
> kmemleak:     [<c04fd8b3>] kmemleak_alloc+0x193/0x2b8
> kmemleak:     [<c04f5c89>] kmem_cache_alloc_notrace+0x121/0x13d
> kmemleak:     [<c0453d29>] __request_region+0x49/0x175
> kmemleak:     [<c067ba8c>] reserve_range+0xfc/0x177
> kmemleak:     [<c067bba5>] system_pnp_probe+0x9e/0xcd
> kmemleak:     [<c0676c30>] pnp_device_probe+0x91/0xc1

Here, the first object is the kmalloc'ed regionid whose pointer is
stored in the next unreferenced object (res->name in __request_region).
So only the struct resource allocated in __request_region needs to be
investigated.

But, as above, could you try the debug/kmemleak file? It is possible
that it is just transient (if that's the case, I could enable stack
scanning by default to avoid such reports).

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin