Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-159370-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:49:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>, Kees Cook
 <keescook@chromium.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
 Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, David
 Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Roman Gushchin
 <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Avoid recursive loop with kmemleak
Message-Id: <20240425164917.8c9603387b4cce11121024a8@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpEMK-6+1CUDfiiKLGLfTEomJGjaeHOfsWZZBdaJ6DcvFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240425205516.work.220-kees@kernel.org>
	<ebc6pcoq4cle3ge526ch6q5hz2vvphmgwu2yqdveypjm24pa3b@cwsggjnoepaq>
	<CAJuCfpEMK-6+1CUDfiiKLGLfTEomJGjaeHOfsWZZBdaJ6DcvFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:30:55 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:

> > > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *mem_pool_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
> > >
> > >       /* try the slab allocator first */
> > >       if (object_cache) {
> > > -             object = kmem_cache_alloc(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> > > +             object = kmem_cache_alloc_noprof(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> >
> > What do these get accounted to, or does this now pop a warning with
> > CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG?
> 
> Thanks for the fix, Kees!
> I'll look into this recursion more closely to see if there is a better
> way to break it. As a stopgap measure seems ok to me. I also think
> it's unlikely that one would use both tracking mechanisms on the same
> system.

I'd really like to start building mm-stable without having to route
around memprofiling.  How about I include Kees's patch in that for now?