Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:59:37 -0400 | From | "Mauricio Lin" <> | Subject | Re: Some issues about the kernel memory leak detector: __scan_block() function |
| |
Hi Catalin,
On 8/17/06, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mauricio, > > On 16/08/06, Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let's suppose the a kmalloc() was executed without storing the > > returned pointer to the memory area and its fictitious returned value > > would be the address 0xb7d73000 as: > > > > kmalloc(32, GFP_KERNEL); // Cause memory leak > > > > Is there any possibility the __scan_block() scans a memory block that > > contains the memory area allocated by the previous kmalloc? > > That's what the memleak-test module does. > > Yes, there is a chance and this is called a false negative. If there > is a (non-)pointer location having this value (especially the stack), > it won't be reported. However, these locations might change and at > some point you will get the leak reported.
Do you mean that the (non-)pointer location might be moved to another memory location?
Let's say that the fictitious address 0xb7d73000 can be changed to another memory address, right?
BR,
Mauricio Lin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |