Re: [PATCH] userns: suppress kmemleak message

[Fubo Chen]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > I can't see the using kmemleak_not_leak is possibly good form.  I
>> > would much rather have suggestions about constructs that won't
>> > confuse kmemleak and won't need ugly annotations that serve no
>> > purpose but to appease a tool.  Perhaps the user_header variable
>> > needs to be moved out of user_namespace_sysctl_init.
>
> The user_header variable is probably (rightfully so) optimised away by
> the compiler since it can't ever be read. Therefore, it simply doesn't
> exist in the resulting binary (and it really shouldn't either) and the
> kmemleak_not_leak() really is the only way to resolve that, I'd say.
>
>> The only alternative I see is to use WRITE_ONCE() instead of "=" to
>> set "user_header" such that the compiler cannot optimize that
>> variable away. Which of these two approaches do you prefer?
>
> That seems really wrong - forcing the linker/compiler to retain a
> variable in the image that can never possibly be read (by anything
> other than kmemleak) is just a complete waste of space.

Does this reply count as a Reviewed-by for the original patch?

Fubo.