[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZaTb8KorPFPgRqD6@shredder>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 09:17:04 +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 Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:31:15PM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:13:01AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:20:27AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > If it is indeed a false positive
>
> Looks like the leaks are transient. After removing the "clear" step the
> leaks do not seem to persist.
>
> > you can try the patch below (I haven't given it any run-time test,
> > only compiled):
>
> Will try and let you know next week.
Looks good. Feel free to add:
Tested-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists