Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-25674-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Feedback-ID: i494840e7:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 09:17:04 +0200
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, 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: <ZaTb8KorPFPgRqD6@shredder>
References: <cover.1694535580.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
 <ZY1osaGLyT-sdKE8@shredder>
 <c9cf02b5-7add-46ea-8db1-46fdce191c1c@arm.com>
 <ZZ2AqZT4dD-s01q9@shredder>
 <ab22c439-e7da-49b5-b20b-856daf376c02@arm.com>
 <ZZ7atzgT6_kOvWnJ@arm.com>
 <ZZ-ky9UCoHwbyqfn@shredder>
 <ZZ-_LWz_4KxOkRsA@arm.com>
 <ZaFbPnDrYT5uGqJD@shredder>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZaFbPnDrYT5uGqJD@shredder>

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@nvidia.com>

Thanks!