Re: BUG: bisected: thermald regression (MEMLEAK) in commit c7ff29763989bd09c433f73fae3c1e1c15d9cda4 #forregzbot

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 26.10.22 14:32, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> On 10/26/2022 10:08 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>> [Note: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and/or for
>> regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. That's why I removed
>> most or all folks from the list of recipients, but left any that looked
>> like a mailing lists. These mails usually contain '#forregzbot' in the
>> subject, to make them easy to spot and filter out.]
>>
>> [TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
>> regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
>> paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]
>>
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>>
>> On 24.10.22 15:13, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Around Sep 27th 2022 I've noticed in a mainline kernel built with
>>> CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y
>>> that there actually is a leak:
>> Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the
>> cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression
>> tracking bot:
>>
>> #regzbot ^introduced c7ff29763989bd
>> #regzbot title thermald regression (MEMLEAK)
>> #regzbot ignore-activity
>>
>> This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
>> discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
>> the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
>> something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
>> telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
>> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/
> 
> You're welcome, no thanks needed.
> 
> Is this really a regression? I can't tell if this is a one-time memory
> leak in thermald, or can it be
> exploited for causing memory leaks in a loop, exhausting kernel memory
> and producing denial-of-service
> or kernel crash.

#regzbot inconclusive: likely wasn't a regression