Detecting kernel memory leaks [LWN.net]

Detecting kernel memory leaks

Posted Jun 29, 2009 0:10 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
In reply to: Detecting kernel memory leaks by epa
Parent article: Detecting kernel memory leaks

if a garbage collector is looking at random bytes and trying to guess if they are pointers or not it's going to guess wrong a lot of the time.

I don't think it's even a requirement that pointers be word aligned in memory, so you would have to look at every 4 byte sequence and calculate if it could be a pointer or not.

that's a _lot_ of calculations to waste your time on, even if you had a chance of being right 100% of the time.

(Log in to post comments)

Detecting kernel memory leaks

Posted Jun 29, 2009 6:56 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The garbage collector doesn't have to do that everywhere, but on the C
stack, it does. It can often rely on alignment requirements because humans
cannot dictate the layout of the stack: only the compiler can. (On many
architectures, e.g. SPARC, they're hard requirements anyway.)

Detecting kernel memory leaks

Posted Jun 29, 2009 7:40 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

if a garbage collector is looking at random bytes and trying to guess if they are pointers or not it's going to guess wrong a lot of the time.

Exactly. Which is why C is not an ideal language for a garbage-collection runtime. More high-level languages provide guarantees of what's a pointer and what isn't, so the GC doesn't have to guess.

Garbage collection in C and C++ can still be useful and fast, but it can never be 100% correct. This may not matter for many applications, but for programs like the kernel which need to be highly secure and must cope with untrusted user input (which could easily contain 32-bit or 64-bit ints carefully chosen to look like pointers), I suspect it does.

I wonder if there is a subset of C which provides the minimal guarantees needed to make garbage collection safe and complete. The main thing would be not to cast pointers to ints and back, nor to allow casting between pointers to things of different sizes, nor arbitrary pointer arithmetic (though arrays could still be provided).