From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 6.1.y 2/4] mm/kmemleak: simplify kmemleak_cond_resched() usage
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 13:48:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260903174832.1263842-2-sashal@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260903174832.1263842-1-sashal@kernel.org>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
[ Upstream commit 6061e740822530a4ef443548b19c4e0bc6342c7a ]
Patch series "mm/kmemleak: Simplify kmemleak_cond_resched() & fix UAF", v2.
It was found that a KASAN use-after-free error was reported in the
kmemleak_scan() function. After further examination, it is believe that
even though a reference is taken from the current object, it does not
prevent the object pointed to by the next pointer from going away after a
cond_resched().
To fix that, additional flags are added to make sure that the current
object won't be removed from the object_list during the duration of the
cond_resched() to ensure the validity of the next pointer.
While making the change, I also simplify the current usage of
kmemleak_cond_resched() to make it easier to understand.
This patch (of 2):
The presence of a pinned argument and the 64k loop count make
kmemleak_cond_resched() a bit more complex to read. The pinned argument
is used only by first kmemleak_scan() loop.
Simplify the usage of kmemleak_cond_resched() by removing the pinned
argument and always do a get_object()/put_object() sequence. In addition,
the 64k loop is removed by using need_resched() to decide if
kmemleak_cond_resched() should be called.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230119040111.350923-1-longman@redhat.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230119040111.350923-2-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Stable-dep-of: 5d10d4e19e6d ("mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task stacks")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
mm/kmemleak.c | 48 ++++++++++++------------------------------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index eaa89f20cd35d..83f885a55bff7 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -1475,22 +1475,17 @@ static void scan_gray_list(void)
/*
* Conditionally call resched() in a object iteration loop while making sure
* that the given object won't go away without RCU read lock by performing a
- * get_object() if !pinned.
- *
- * Return: false if can't do a cond_resched() due to get_object() failure
- * true otherwise
+ * get_object() if necessaary.
*/
-static bool kmemleak_cond_resched(struct kmemleak_object *object, bool pinned)
+static void kmemleak_cond_resched(struct kmemleak_object *object)
{
- if (!pinned && !get_object(object))
- return false;
+ if (!get_object(object))
+ return; /* Try next object */
rcu_read_unlock();
cond_resched();
rcu_read_lock();
- if (!pinned)
- put_object(object);
- return true;
+ put_object(object);
}
/*
@@ -1504,15 +1499,12 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
struct zone *zone;
int __maybe_unused i;
int new_leaks = 0;
- int loop_cnt = 0;
jiffies_last_scan = jiffies;
/* prepare the kmemleak_object's */
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
- bool obj_pinned = false;
-
raw_spin_lock_irq(&object->lock);
#ifdef DEBUG
/*
@@ -1538,19 +1530,13 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
/* reset the reference count (whiten the object) */
object->count = 0;
- if (color_gray(object) && get_object(object)) {
+ if (color_gray(object) && get_object(object))
list_add_tail(&object->gray_list, &gray_list);
- obj_pinned = true;
- }
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&object->lock);
- /*
- * Do a cond_resched() every 64k objects to avoid soft lockup.
- */
- if (!(++loop_cnt & 0xffff) &&
- !kmemleak_cond_resched(object, obj_pinned))
- loop_cnt--; /* Try again on next object */
+ if (need_resched())
+ kmemleak_cond_resched(object);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -1617,14 +1603,9 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
* scan and color them gray until the next scan.
*/
rcu_read_lock();
- loop_cnt = 0;
list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
- /*
- * Do a cond_resched() every 64k objects to avoid soft lockup.
- */
- if (!(++loop_cnt & 0xffff) &&
- !kmemleak_cond_resched(object, false))
- loop_cnt--; /* Try again on next object */
+ if (need_resched())
+ kmemleak_cond_resched(object);
/*
* This is racy but we can save the overhead of lock/unlock
@@ -1659,14 +1640,9 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
* Scanning result reporting.
*/
rcu_read_lock();
- loop_cnt = 0;
list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
- /*
- * Do a cond_resched() every 64k objects to avoid soft lockup.
- */
- if (!(++loop_cnt & 0xffff) &&
- !kmemleak_cond_resched(object, false))
- loop_cnt--; /* Try again on next object */
+ if (need_resched())
+ kmemleak_cond_resched(object);
/*
* This is racy but we can save the overhead of lock/unlock
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-03 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-03 10:47 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task stacks" failed to apply to 6.1-stable tree gregkh
2026-09-03 17:48 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 1/4] mm: use stack_depot for recording kmemleak's backtrace Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 17:48 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
2026-09-03 17:48 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 3/4] kmemleak: drop (age <increasing>) from leak record Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 17:48 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 4/4] mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task stacks Sasha Levin
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=20260903174832.1263842-2-sashal@kernel.org \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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