----- On Jun 24, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Joel Fernandes, Google [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01:04AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- On Jun 24, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra [email protected] wrote: >> >> > While auditing all module notifiers I noticed a whole bunch of fail >> > wrt the return value. Notifiers have a 'special' return semantics. >> > >> > Cc: Robert Richter <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Song Liu <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> >> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> >> > Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> >> >> Thanks Peter for looking into this, especially considering your >> endless love for kernel modules! ;) >> >> It's not directly related to your changes, but I notice that >> kernel/trace/trace_printk.c:hold_module_trace_bprintk_format() >> appears to leak memory. Am I missing something ? > > Could you elaborate? Do you mean there is no MODULE_STATE_GOING notifier > check? If that's what you mean then I agree, there should be some place > where the format structures are freed when the module is unloaded no? Yes, the lack of GOING notifier is worrying considering that GOING performs memory allocation. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
