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 1FAA3C48BC2 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0708561948 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229882AbhFYPa0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:30:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42516 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229671AbhFYPaZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:30:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B4B8C061574 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id m15-20020a17090a5a4fb029016f385ffad0so5770424pji.0 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=frNrB5arZ0af7eYWscRW/m7hTrDpvS48VBzLDL43+WyQzljLBPJugvCNeBcgmbLyMK oDB3IlAyXtmJfZP/ECk22A7MOojZp6lHPeWGDULmyjWNmBiXQvNCVp3qE9BFJBfZp64m m/87z6nVZN0pvlk62hVeQJdfBRO9T9KrDMiDLYIbWO8R8f0Oe+ZCViRh1CFD9HZu39zk FanNjCgGD1Bn1p/FZSJzRR8jWlDzxFwA/ExlNdYHHlBxcKEGGqqutDrpZqynrRKWo2NF 1Re9jIRv2QkPuHjTzR6pi/97c5rOVy0oQThzUrs6yRZ+wcagWW6/+M/HhwKZm6wJ8azh d7Sw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311MaIkjzSoORNsW7KhRyCygbL5h0Op0GjcVt3VSJcq9Vs0bV3k VOYrY6l+RijGBhcpblaHyLEs60DIBAK5ydT1 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> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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