Hi Jens,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 11:16 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>
>> The pages allocated for struct request contain pointers to other slab
>> allocations (via ops->init_request). Since kmemleak does not track/scan
>> page allocations, the slab objects will be reported as leaks (false
>> positives). This patch adds kmemleak callbacks to allow tracking of such
>> pages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
>> Reported-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
>> Tested-by: Bart Van Assche<[email protected]>
>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> Jens,
>>
>> I just realised that no-one has picked this patch up for -rc1. It was
>> discussed here previously:
>>
>>
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>
>> Since it touches the block layer, are you fine with merging it?
>
>
> Yeah looks simple enough for me, not sure why it got missed. I'll add it for
> 4.4-rc1, thanks.
I saw the related kmemleaks reports on my v4.1.x kernel. Since it's
actually fixing these wrong reports, do you think it could be a good
candidate for -stable tree?
Thanks,
--
William
On 11/25/2015 04:04 AM, William Dauchy wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 09/14/2015 11:16 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>
>>> The pages allocated for struct request contain pointers to other slab
>>> allocations (via ops->init_request). Since kmemleak does not track/scan
>>> page allocations, the slab objects will be reported as leaks (false
>>> positives). This patch adds kmemleak callbacks to allow tracking of such
>>> pages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
>>> Reported-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
>>> Tested-by: Bart Van Assche<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Jens,
>>>
>>> I just realised that no-one has picked this patch up for -rc1. It was
>>> discussed here previously:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>
>>> Since it touches the block layer, are you fine with merging it?
>>
>>
>> Yeah looks simple enough for me, not sure why it got missed. I'll add it for
>> 4.4-rc1, thanks.
>
> I saw the related kmemleaks reports on my v4.1.x kernel. Since it's
> actually fixing these wrong reports, do you think it could be a good
> candidate for -stable tree?
I'd say it's borderline. It's fixing a tracking bug. Unless others feel
strongly otherwise, I don't think it's stable material.
--
Jens Axboe
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd say it's borderline. It's fixing a tracking bug. Unless others feel
> strongly otherwise, I don't think it's stable material.
ok thanks for your feedback.
--
William