On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 03:50:29PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > Kmemleak handling is one of the reasons why kfree_nolock() cannot > currently handle kmalloc() objects, because calling kmemleak_free() > would involve spinning on its internal raw spinlocks. > > Kmemleak is a debugging mechanism so we could simply defer all > kfree_nolock() to irq_work if it's enabled, and eat the extra cost. But > that would be unnecessary pessimistic. We expect kfree_nolock() will be > still mostly called on objects from kmalloc_nolock() that are not > registered in kmemleak so they still don't need any deferred freeing. > > Thus introduce kmemleak_may_need_free() that can check if the object is > registered. This is done using __lookup_object() performed under a > raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(), which is safe to attempt from kfree_nolock() > (except from a NMI on a !CONFIG_SMP system). When that trylock fails or > can't be attempted, we however must assume the object might be > registered, and defer the freeing. > > The ordering of kmsan/kasan handling and kmemleak is also different from > what kfree() is doing, but as explained in the comment, it should be OK. > > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/kmemleak.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > mm/kmemleak.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > mm/slub.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/kmemleak.h b/include/linux/kmemleak.h > index fbd424b2abb1..52f75f10a9ce 100644 > --- a/include/linux/kmemleak.h > +++ b/include/linux/kmemleak.h > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern void kmemleak_alloc_percpu(const void __percpu *ptr, > size_t size, > extern void kmemleak_vmalloc(const struct vm_struct *area, size_t size, > gfp_t gfp) __ref; > extern void kmemleak_free(const void *ptr) __ref; > +bool kmemleak_may_need_free(const void *ptr) __ref; > extern void kmemleak_free_part(const void *ptr, size_t size) __ref; > extern void kmemleak_free_percpu(const void __percpu *ptr) __ref; > extern void kmemleak_update_trace(const void *ptr) __ref; > @@ -50,6 +51,14 @@ static inline void kmemleak_free_recursive(const void > *ptr, slab_flags_t flags) > kmemleak_free(ptr); > } > > +static inline bool kmemleak_may_need_free_recursive(const void *ptr, > slab_flags_t flags) > +{ > + if (!(flags & SLAB_NOLEAKTRACE)) > + return kmemleak_may_need_free(ptr); > + > + return false; > +} > + > static inline void kmemleak_erase(void **ptr) > { > *ptr = NULL; > @@ -86,6 +95,14 @@ static inline void kmemleak_free_part(const void *ptr, > size_t size) > static inline void kmemleak_free_recursive(const void *ptr, slab_flags_t > flags) > { > } > +static inline bool kmemleak_may_need_free(const void *ptr) > +{ > + return false; > +} > +static inline bool kmemleak_may_need_free_recursive(const void *ptr, > slab_flags_t flags) > +{ > + return false; > +} > static inline void kmemleak_free_percpu(const void __percpu *ptr) > { > } > diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c > index 7c7ba17ce7af..e3560ce82632 100644 > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c > @@ -1168,6 +1168,48 @@ void __ref kmemleak_free(const void *ptr) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kmemleak_free); > > +/** > + * kmemleak_may_need_free - check if object is registered > + * @ptr: pointer to beginning of the object > + * > + * This function is called from the kernel allocator when an object should be > + * freed but the caller context might be unsafe to spin on the internal > locks. > + * > + * It will therefore only use trylock and thus might return a false positive > + * if the trylock fails and the status cannot be determined. > + * > + * For objects that (might) need free, the allocator has to defer the actual > + * freeing to a safe context. > + * > + * The assumption is that most objects freed from the unsafe context are also > + * allocated in such context and thus are not registered in kmemleak, so it's > + * unlikely the defered freeing will be necessary just because kmemleak is > + * enabled. > + */ > +bool __ref kmemleak_may_need_free(const void *ptr) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + struct kmemleak_object *object; > + > + pr_debug("%s(0x%px)\n", __func__, ptr); > + > + if (!kmemleak_free_enabled || !ptr || IS_ERR(ptr)) > + return false; > + > + /* On UP, raw_spin_trylock() always succeeds even when it is locked */ > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) && in_nmi()) > + return true; > + > + if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&kmemleak_lock, flags)) > + return true; > + > + object = __lookup_object((unsigned long)ptr, 0, 0); > + > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kmemleak_lock, flags); > + > + return !!object; > +} > + > /** > * kmemleak_free_part - partially unregister a previously registered object > * @ptr: pointer to the beginning or inside the object. This also > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > index 2d7648b96bfa..423b5bdb910b 100644 > --- a/mm/slub.c > +++ b/mm/slub.c > @@ -6390,6 +6390,8 @@ static void deferred_percpu_work_fn(struct irq_work > *work) > /* Point 'x' back to the beginning of allocated object */ > x -= s->offset; > > + kmemleak_free_recursive(x, s->flags); > + > /* > * We used freepointer in 'x' to link 'x' into df->objects. > * Clear it to NULL to avoid false positive detection > @@ -6403,8 +6405,15 @@ static void deferred_percpu_work_fn(struct irq_work > *work) > > llnode = llist_del_all(&dpw->objects_kfence); > llist_for_each_safe(pos, t, llnode) { > + struct kmem_cache *s; > + struct slab *slab; > void *obj = kfence_llnode_to_obj(pos); > > + slab = virt_to_slab(obj); > + s = slab->slab_cache; > + > + kmemleak_free_recursive(obj, s->flags); > + > __kfence_free(obj); > } > > @@ -6781,15 +6790,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfree); > > /* > * Can be called while holding raw_spinlock_t or from IRQ and NMI, > - * but ONLY for objects allocated by kmalloc_nolock(). > - * > - * In case kmemleak is enabled, > + * but may defer freeing to irq_work() in some cases. > * > - * obj = kmalloc(); kfree_nolock(obj); > - * > - * will miss kmemleak book keeping and will cause false positives. > - * > - * large_kmalloc is not supported either. > + * Intended mainly for objects allocated from kmalloc_nolock(), but can > handle > + * also kmem_cache_alloc() and kmalloc() objects, except large_kmalloc.
Do we need to add slab_want_init_on_free support for kfree_nolock as well? -- Thanks, Hao
