On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 07:35:11AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:19 AM Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On 21/01/2019 11:57, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > > [...] > > > # echo dump=0xffffffc021e00000 > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak > > > kmemleak: Object 0xffffffc021e00000 (size 2097152): > > > kmemleak: comm "swapper/0", pid 0, jiffies 4294892296 > > > kmemleak: min_count = 0 > > > kmemleak: count = 0 > > > kmemleak: flags = 0x1 > > > kmemleak: checksum = 0 > > > kmemleak: backtrace: > > > kmemleak_alloc_phys+0x48/0x60 > > > memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8c/0xa4 > > > memblock_alloc_base_nid+0x4c/0x60 > > > __memblock_alloc_base+0x3c/0x4c > > > early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch+0x54/0xa4 > > > fdt_init_reserved_mem+0x308/0x3ec > > > early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem+0x88/0xb0 > > > arm64_memblock_init+0x1dc/0x254 > > > setup_arch+0x1c8/0x4ec > > > start_kernel+0x84/0x44c > > > 0xffffffffffffffff > > > > OK, so via the __va(phys) call in kmemleak_alloc_phys(), you end up with > > the linear map address of a no-map reservation, which unsurprisingly > > turns out not to be mapped. Is there a way to tell kmemleak that it > > can't scan within a particular object? > > There was this patch posted[1]. I never got a reply, so it hasn't been > applied. > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/995367/
Thanks Rob, I wasn't aware of this patch (or I just missed it at the time). I wonder whether kmemleak should simply remove ranges passed to memblock_remove(), or at least mark them as no-scan. -- Catalin
