On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:10:59AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:37 PM Andrew Morton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 May 2019 19:15:07 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]> > > > > > > in_softirq() is a wrong predicate to check if we are in a softirq context. > > > It also returns true if we have BH disabled, so objects are falsely > > > stamped with "softirq" comm. The correct predicate is > > > in_serving_softirq(). > > > > > > ... > > > > > > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c > > > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c > > > @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *create_object(unsigned > > > long ptr, size_t size, > > > if (in_irq()) { > > > object->pid = 0; > > > strncpy(object->comm, "hardirq", sizeof(object->comm)); > > > - } else if (in_softirq()) { > > > + } else if (in_serving_softirq()) { > > > object->pid = 0; > > > strncpy(object->comm, "softirq", sizeof(object->comm)); > > > } else { > > > > What are the user-visible runtime effects of this change? > > If user does cat from /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak previously they would > see this, which is clearly wrong, this is system call context (see the > comm):
Indeed, with your patch you get the correct output. Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> Thanks. -- Catalin
