Hi Catalin,
On 8/17/06, Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mauricio,
On 16/08/06, Mauricio Lin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's suppose the a kmalloc() was executed without storing the
> returned pointer to the memory area and its fictitious returned value
> would be the address 0xb7d73000 as:
>
> kmalloc(32, GFP_KERNEL); // Cause memory leak
>
> Is there any possibility the __scan_block() scans a memory block that
> contains the memory area allocated by the previous kmalloc?
That's what the memleak-test module does.
Yes, there is a chance and this is called a false negative. If there
is a (non-)pointer location having this value (especially the stack),
it won't be reported. However, these locations might change and at
some point you will get the leak reported.
Do you mean that the (non-)pointer location might be moved to another
memory location?
Let's say that the fictitious address 0xb7d73000 can be changed to
another memory address, right?
BR,
Mauricio Lin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
