From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767399AbXCIQxl (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:53:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767402AbXCIQxl (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:53:41 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.226]:50318 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767399AbXCIQxk (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:53:40 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=H4m1jeoYskOIdE/gyJecpRPLh2xIAUPQjBe0XLin59sMDiT5epAo40LZPZOgQQYBFGzvYOFzv3LR/DM/D3EVXZSAey2IF1yw8pi5Kbt7xR7SPC1Kzl5ICb6kssgpkRQ3tWxbe6s/fE24/gOMDbOfyGQJgxH8sWTAmatpRo05OR0= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:53:39 +0000 From: "Catalin Marinas" To: "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/03/07, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Catalin Marinas" writes: > > > On 08/03/07, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> "Catalin Marinas" writes: > > > > I think it's only the pid_chain and rcu member that could be placed in > > a list and kmemleak scans the memory for these two offsets as well. > > I'll check those lists anyway but I doubt it's a more fundamental > > problem with how kmemleak handles struct pid as I should've probably > > got more reports. > > Right. I was pointing out the possibilities but because we do > some tricky things. Mostly I was wondering about the hlist for > the list of tasks. Now if a task is on that list we should have > a struct pid_link pointing at our struct pid, so it shouldn't fool > kmemleak but I'm still a little curious if all of those hlist_heads are > NULL pointers. Yes, all the 3 hlist_head tasks are NULL pointers on the reported object. -- Catalin