Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan

[Catalin Marinas]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:34 +0100, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:
> From: ext Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > Can we not add a new prio tree (or just use the existing one) for
> > pointer aliases? The advantage is that you only have a single function
> > to call, something like kmemleak_add_alias() and you do it at the point
> > the value was converted.
> 
> Actually I considered the above aliasing a little bit but I gave up
> soon.
> 
> I was afraid that this method might consume way more memory since this
> just adds another member for "struct kmemleak_object", but adding a
> single member for all objects. The number of kmemleak_object is
> usually numerous.

We could use a different tree with a "struct kmemleak_alias" structure
which is much smaller. Something like below:

struct kmemleak_alias {
	struct list_head alias_list;
	struct prio_tree_node tree_node;
	struct kmemleak_object *object;
}

And an alias_list member would be added to kmemleak_object as well.

Would the alias tree need to allow overlapping? Like different IOMMU
mappings with the same address (but pointing to different physical
memory).

-- 
Catalin

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/