Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1332419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-12 00:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-12 00:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: gigaset: memory leak in gigaset_initcshw Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> - 2016-02-12 00:00 +0100
| From | Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 00:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: gigaset: memory leak in gigaset_initcshw |
| Message-ID | <r18np-6Ne-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Dmitry,
On vr, 2016-02-05 at 17:06 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On vr, 2016-02-05 at 14:28 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > I wonder why you don't see the leak I am seeing...
>
> So do I, for a few days now.
0) I finally managed to reliably trigger this leak on an i686, single
core machine (yet another ThinkPad).
1) Note that on that machine the leak was noticeable under the kmalloc
-512 line (struct ser_cardstate is 456 bytes on that machine). I'm
_guessing_ the kmalloc-2048 line, which I stared at for quite some time,
is only relevant here for x86_64 and when there's a bit of
instrumentation, or whatever, added to the slab objects (as they are in
your VM?).
2) More important was that this i686 machine ran a tree that actually
included the offending commit:
25cad69f21f5 ("base/platform: Fix platform drivers with no probe callback").
See, after staring at the gigaset code for way too long I decided to
just use brute force. Ie, I bisected this issue.
2) Anyhow, thanks again for the report. Now on to the next question: how
on earth does that commit make ser_gigaset leak struct ser_cardstate?
To be continued,
Paul Bolle
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web