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
