[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZ-ky9UCoHwbyqfn@shredder>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:20:27 +0200
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
zhangzekun11@...wei.com, john.g.garry@...cle.com,
dheerajkumar.srivastava@....com, jsnitsel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iommu/iova: Make the rcache depot properly
flexible
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:58:15PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Transient false positives are possible, especially as the code doesn't
> use a double-linked list (for the latter, kmemleak does checksumming and
> detects the prev/next change, defers the reporting until the object
> becomes stable). That said, if a new scan is forced (echo scan >
> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak), are the same objects still listed as leaks?
> If yes, they may not be transient.
We are doing "scan" and "clear" after each test. I will disable the
"clear" and see if the leaks persist.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists