linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] mptcp: misc. features for v6.18

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d4205818-e283-4862-946d-4e51bf180158@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 20:50:19 +0200 (GMT+02:00)
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...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

Hi Catalin,

2 Sept 2025 20:25:19 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>:

> 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.

Thank you for the explanation!

Does that mean a scan should be triggered at the end of the tests,
then wait 5 second for the grace period, then trigger another scan
and check the results?

Or wait 5 seconds, then trigger two consecutive scans?

Cheers,
Matt