From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A305E8E0002 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 12:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id e12so7276202edd.16 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:19:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y32si789665ede.115.2019.01.12.09.19.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:19:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 18:19:03 +0100 From: Roman Penyaev Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/vmalloc: do not call kmemleak_free() on not yet accounted memory In-Reply-To: References: <20190103145954.16942-1-rpenyaev@suse.de> <20190103145954.16942-3-rpenyaev@suse.de> Message-ID: <6557efeadcb4fdedbd9c36947e644e2f@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrey Ryabinin Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Joe Perches , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-01-11 20:26, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > On 1/3/19 5:59 PM, Roman Penyaev wrote: >> __vmalloc_area_node() calls vfree() on error path, which in turn calls >> kmemleak_free(), but area is not yet accounted by kmemleak_vmalloc(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev >> Cc: Andrew Morton >> Cc: Michal Hocko >> Cc: Andrey Ryabinin >> Cc: Joe Perches >> Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" >> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> --- >> mm/vmalloc.c | 16 +++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c >> index 2cd24186ba84..dc6a62bca503 100644 >> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c >> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c >> @@ -1565,6 +1565,14 @@ void vfree_atomic(const void *addr) >> __vfree_deferred(addr); >> } >> >> +static void __vfree(const void *addr) >> +{ >> + if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) >> + __vfree_deferred(addr); >> + else >> + __vunmap(addr, 1); >> +} >> + >> /** >> * vfree - release memory allocated by vmalloc() >> * @addr: memory base address >> @@ -1591,10 +1599,8 @@ void vfree(const void *addr) >> >> if (!addr) >> return; >> - if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) >> - __vfree_deferred(addr); >> - else >> - __vunmap(addr, 1); >> + >> + __vfree(addr); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(vfree); >> >> @@ -1709,7 +1715,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct >> vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> warn_alloc(gfp_mask, NULL, >> "vmalloc: allocation failure, allocated %ld of %ld bytes", >> (area->nr_pages*PAGE_SIZE), area->size); >> - vfree(area->addr); >> + __vfree(area->addr); > > This can't be an interrupt context for a several reasons. One of them > is BUG_ON(in_interrupt()) in __get_vm_area_node() > which is called right before __vmalloc_are_node(). > > So you can just do __vunmap(area->addr, 1); instead of __vfree(). Thanks, I missed that BUG_ON and could not prove, that we can call only from a task context, thus decided not to make it strict. Of course simple __vunmap() is much better. The other reason is that we call a spin_lock without disabling the interrupts. Now I see. Andrew, may I resend just an updated version of this patch? -- Roman