> It's a huge pile of tricky code we'll need to maintain. To justify its > inclusion I think we need to be confident that kasan will find a > significant number of significant bugs that > kmemcheck/debug_pagealloc/slub_debug failed to detect.
I would put it differently. kmemcheck is effectively too slow to run regularly. kasan is much faster and covers most of kmemcheck. So I would rather see it as a more practical replacement to kmemcheck, not an addition. > How do we get that confidence? I've seen a small number of > minorish-looking kasan-detected bug reports go past, maybe six or so. > That's in a 20-year-old code base, so one new minor bug discovered per > three years? Not worth it! > > Presumably more bugs will be exposed as more people use kasan on > different kernel configs, but will their number and seriousness justify > the maintenance effort? I would expect so. It's also about saving developer time. IMHO getting better tools like this is the only way to keep up with growing complexity. > If kasan will permit us to remove kmemcheck/debug_pagealloc/slub_debug > then that tips the balance a little. What's the feasibility of that? Maybe removing kmemcheck. slub_debug/debug_pagealloc are simple, and are in different niches (lower overhead debugging) -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
