From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89FA6C4332F for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 16:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail20150812 header.b=jAk6krK1; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SKbfp1Vl6z3cb7 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 03:48:02 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail20150812 header.b=jAk6krK1; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org (client-ip=2001:67c:2050:0:465::101; helo=mout-p-101.mailbox.org; envelope-from=erhard_f@mailbox.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:0:465::101]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SKbdm31MQz3c9y for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 03:47:04 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SKbdQ0pBlz9sv4; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:46:50 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1698770810; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yihRMXS9Xj/0hzDgGosoo7nHHoo+fzWfdjHSJ7McyWg=; b=jAk6krK1etp6CL4GPKbxQLQkldqsCwSaSKVB7vqAvz/nGxdbhdt9VC4BFGdFPS1/Kg00xU VUurTftgmufw7pt8ly2KqaFFgXmlkmQ3QBOBpGWLFfb3eeL+lOtx5X6NsX/fjpZQzAijHO vTDxu7S+BSIa1n1fVkQh7krQ12WGCnFsgXTPtu7+YVmqlMetNDKVXovoeH05WUazpSP366 pIMGanE9/Hx1GCiVfjwtqUPFD8O1BWRlcwBxcb3jimsp/4LpTkIviUYTpLJKJxEpYFHbLW mp2DhqQeK20dGDKd5UaxjbRa51Xcw9GgRWK0eQ4ELljWQTPvDj2bDfDZEk4Qxg== Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:46:46 +0100 From: Erhard Furtner To: Rob Herring Subject: Re: Several kmemleak reports + "refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free" at boot when OF_UNITTEST + OF_OVERLAY is set (Kernel v6.6-rc6, PowerMac G5 11,2) Message-ID: <20231031174646.3d4e1447@yea> In-Reply-To: References: <20231018233815.34a0417f@yea> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-RS-META: rdurhbjwzek9i9igtcoy6nd9d711ztgu X-MBO-RS-ID: ebe9b306ae8c2338259 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:26:48 -0500 Rob Herring wrote: > The test tells you to expect a use-after-free... > > > ---[ end trace <> ]--- ### dt-test ### pass of_unittest_lifecycle():3209 > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free. > > Then you get a use-after-free. Looks like it is working as designed. > > I believe it's the same with kmemleak. > > Note that running DT unittests also taints the kernel. That's because > they are not meant to be run on a production system. > > Rob My bad, did not realize this is actually intended behaviour... Sorry for the noise! Regards, Erhard