Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1542686
| 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 |
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 | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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