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 5.15.y 4/7] mm/kmemleak: prevent soft lockup in kmemleak_scan()'s object iteration loops
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:47:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260903184733.1484444-4-sashal@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260903184733.1484444-1-sashal@kernel.org>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
[ Upstream commit 984a608377cb623351b8a3670b285f32ebeb2d32 ]
Commit 6edda04ccc7c ("mm/kmemleak: prevent soft lockup in first object
iteration loop of kmemleak_scan()") adds cond_resched() in the first
object iteration loop of kmemleak_scan(). However, it turns that the 2nd
objection iteration loop can still cause soft lockup to happen in some
cases. So add a cond_resched() call in the 2nd and 3rd loops as well to
prevent that and for completeness.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221020175619.366317-1-longman@redhat.com
Fixes: 6edda04ccc7c ("mm/kmemleak: prevent soft lockup in first object iteration loop of kmemleak_scan()")
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
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 | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index e52f0cbed6f2b..b4d7c1deedc17 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -1402,6 +1402,27 @@ static void scan_gray_list(void)
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&gray_list));
}
+/*
+ * 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
+ */
+static bool kmemleak_cond_resched(struct kmemleak_object *object, bool pinned)
+{
+ if (!pinned && !get_object(object))
+ return false;
+
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ cond_resched();
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ if (!pinned)
+ put_object(object);
+ return true;
+}
+
/*
* Scan data sections and all the referenced memory blocks allocated via the
* kernel's standard allocators. This function must be called with the
@@ -1413,7 +1434,7 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
struct zone *zone;
int __maybe_unused i;
int new_leaks = 0;
- int loop1_cnt = 0;
+ int loop_cnt = 0;
jiffies_last_scan = jiffies;
@@ -1422,7 +1443,6 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
bool obj_pinned = false;
- loop1_cnt++;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&object->lock);
#ifdef DEBUG
/*
@@ -1445,24 +1465,11 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&object->lock);
/*
- * Do a cond_resched() to avoid soft lockup every 64k objects.
- * Make sure a reference has been taken so that the object
- * won't go away without RCU read lock.
+ * Do a cond_resched() every 64k objects to avoid soft lockup.
*/
- if (!(loop1_cnt & 0xffff)) {
- if (!obj_pinned && !get_object(object)) {
- /* Try the next object instead */
- loop1_cnt--;
- continue;
- }
-
- rcu_read_unlock();
- cond_resched();
- rcu_read_lock();
-
- if (!obj_pinned)
- put_object(object);
- }
+ if (!(++loop_cnt & 0xffff) &&
+ !kmemleak_cond_resched(object, obj_pinned))
+ loop_cnt--; /* Try again on next object */
}
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -1529,7 +1536,15 @@ 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 */
+
/*
* This is racy but we can save the overhead of lock/unlock
* calls. The missed objects, if any, should be caught in
@@ -1563,7 +1578,15 @@ 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 */
+
/*
* This is racy but we can save the overhead of lock/unlock
* calls. The missed objects, if any, should be caught in
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-03 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ 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 5.15-stable tree gregkh
2026-09-03 18:47 ` [PATCH 5.15.y 1/7] mm/kmemleak: use _irq lock/unlock variants in kmemleak_scan/_clear() Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 18:47 ` [PATCH 5.15.y 2/7] mm/kmemleak: skip unlikely objects in kmemleak_scan() without taking lock Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 18:47 ` [PATCH 5.15.y 3/7] mm/kmemleak: prevent soft lockup in first object iteration loop of kmemleak_scan() Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 18:47 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
2026-09-03 18:47 ` [PATCH 5.15.y 5/7] mm: use stack_depot for recording kmemleak's backtrace Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 18:47 ` [PATCH 5.15.y 6/7] kmemleak: drop (age <increasing>) from leak record Sasha Levin
2026-09-03 18:47 ` [PATCH 5.15.y 7/7] 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=20260903184733.1484444-4-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