From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84B4B6EB50 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:31:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=idosch.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=idosch.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ftbXLT06" Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5715C018D; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:31:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1705073475; x=1705159875; bh=ZhpXUyqtXqqOuV7cHzzwsDe+dNf2 DevUdK02WPndxl4=; b=ftbXLT06+QrUk2I79xF+R9gJMtElPIs0d158WM7JuOq7 EK7cWJYR0cItZn/yzg9sL74hkcLW7Zu+3Er+xQL38mxFrgNcGwj3MA8u5inkPMtw d6sxJEZ6SBeEY/MdTtwNIFfwYJl0Lal+JvhXJM5fU7Dc1JPTTpU+Al4XUHIpeZJQ OZ7LtfLi1TZlQp5lUeDT4RqlGbknjo5wGxqWTcpQT1HV+nV5Vse+OK9BAPG8ooR3 RrbESSgigv5ENZgJ3JxCwvGoXU7dmMPavZ0avTJEKl56wZS+B6G2aHNMK6dZ0L4C 6+Wflx9bHtygvFCXZWIyW2YJKBTb26QHnpb/o93lIA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdeihedgjeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepkfguohcu ufgthhhimhhmvghluceoihguohhstghhsehiughoshgthhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepvddufeevkeehueegfedtvdevfefgudeifeduieefgfelkeehgeelgeejjeeg gefhnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepih guohhstghhsehiughoshgthhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i494840e7:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:31:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:31:10 +0200 From: Ido Schimmel To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Robin Murphy , joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhangzekun11@huawei.com, john.g.garry@oracle.com, dheerajkumar.srivastava@amd.com, jsnitsel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iommu/iova: Make the rcache depot properly flexible Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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. Thanks