[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aLc2hyFAH9kxlNEg@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:25:11 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>, mptcp@...ts.linux.dev,
Mat Martineau <martineau@...nel.org>,
Geliang Tang <geliang@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@...nai.com>,
Gang Yan <yangang@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] mptcp: misc. features for v6.18
On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 08:27:59AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:51:47 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > It is unclear why a second scan is needed and only the second one caught
> > something. Was it the same with the strange issues you mentioned in
> > driver tests? Do you think I should re-add the second scan + cat?
>
> Not sure, cc: Catalin, from experience it seems like second scan often
> surfaces issues the first scan missed.
It's some of the kmemleak heuristics to reduce false positives. It does
a checksum of the object during scanning and only reports a leak if the
checksum is the same in two consecutive scans.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists