Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1542686

Re: [PATCH] userns: suppress kmemleak message

From Fubo Chen <fubo.chen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] userns: suppress kmemleak message
Date 2016-12-15 13:20 +0100
Message-ID <sODaV-5DY-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <szj4t-8aX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <szrEP-5cN-53@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> We do not ever intend to unregister "user" sysctl table, unfortunately
>> it leads kmemleak to believe that we are leaking memory:
>
> Sounds like an issue with kmemleak because we do retain references.
>
> So no we don't intend to unregister the table.
>
> As for the patch.
>
> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
>
> I can't see the using kmemleak_not_leak is possibly good form.  I
> would much rather have suggestions about constructs that won't confuse
> kmemleak and won't need ugly annotations that serve no purpose but to
> appease a tool.  Perhaps the user_header variable needs to be moved out
> of user_namespace_sysctl_init.

The only alternative I see is to use WRITE_ONCE() instead of "=" to
set "user_header" such that the compiler cannot optimize that variable
away. Which of these two approaches do you prefer?

Fubo.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextNext in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH] userns: suppress kmemleak message Fubo Chen <fubo.chen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 13:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] userns: suppress kmemleak message Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-12-16 10:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] userns: suppress kmemleak message Fubo Chen <fubo.chen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 15:00 +0100

csiph-web