Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:10:24 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, jim.cromie@gmail.com,
        linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: kmemleaks on ac3b43283923 ("module: replace module_layout with
 module_memory")
Message-ID: <ZDV4YGjRpuqcI7F3@arm.com>
References: <CAJfuBxwomDagbdNP-Q6WvzcWsNY0Z2Lu2Yy5aZQ1d9W7Ka1_NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZCaE71aPvvQ/L05L@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAPhsuW6P5AYVKMk=G1bEUz5PGZKmTJwtgQBmE-P4iAo7dOr5yA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZCs6jpo1nYe1Wm08@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZCs6jpo1nYe1Wm08@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 01:43:58PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 05:27:04PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 12:00 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 04:45:43PM -0600, jim.cromie@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > kmemleak is reporting 19 leaks during boot
> > > >
> > > > because the hexdumps appeared to have module-names,
> > > > and Ive been hacking nearby, and see the same names
> > > > every time I boot my test-vm, I needed a clearer picture
> > > > Jason corroborated and bisected.
> > > >
> > > > the 19 leaks split into 2 groups,
> > > > 9 with names of builtin modules in the hexdump,
> > > > all with the same backtrace
> > > > 9 without module-names (with a shared backtrace)
> > > > +1 wo name-ish and a separate backtrace
> > >
> > > Song, please take a look.
> > 
> > I will look into this next week.
> 
> I'm thinking this may be it, at least this gets us to what we used to do
> as per original Catalinas' 4f2294b6dc88d ("kmemleak: Add modules
> support") and right before Song's patch.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
> index 6b6da80f363f..3b9c71fa6096 100644
> --- a/kernel/module/main.c
> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
> @@ -2240,7 +2240,10 @@ static int move_module(struct module *mod, struct load_info *info)
>  		 * which is inside the block. Just mark it as not being a
>  		 * leak.
>  		 */
> -		kmemleak_ignore(ptr);
> +		if (type == MOD_INIT_TEXT)
> +			kmemleak_ignore(ptr);
> +		else
> +			kmemleak_not_leak(ptr);
>  		if (!ptr) {
>  			t = type;
>  			goto out_enomem;
> 
> We used to use the grey area for the TEXT but the original commit
> doesn't explain too well why we grey out init but not the others. Ie
> why kmemleak_ignore() on init and kmemleak_not_leak() on the others.

It's safe to use the 'grey' colour in all cases. For text sections that
don't need scanning, there's a slight chance of increasing the false
negatives, so marking it 'black' ignores the scanning. For the init
section, if it gets discarded anyway, just going with
kmemleak_not_leak() is fine. It simplifies the logic above.

-- 
Catalin