lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/slub: Fix incorrect checkings of s->offset
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 09:29:41AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/27/20 9:18 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 4/27/20 8:38 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:02:12PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > In a couple of places in the slub memory allocator, the code uses
> > > > "s->offset" as a check to see if the free pointer is put right
> > > > after the
> > > > object. That check is no longer true with commit 3202fa62fb43 ("slub:
> > > > relocate freelist pointer to middle of object").
> > > >
> > > > As a result, echoing "1" into the validate sysfs file, e.g. of dentry,
> > > > may cause a bunch of "Freepointer corrupt" error reports to appear with
> > > > the system in panic afterwards.
> > > >
> > > > To fix it, use the check "s->offset == s->inuse" instead.
> > > I think a little refactoring would make this more clear.
> > >
> > > unsigned int track_offset(const struct kmem_cache *s)
> > > {
> > >     return s->inuse + (s->offset == s->inuse) ? sizeof(void *) : 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Yes, that was what I am thinking of doing in v2.
>
> BTW, "+" has a higher priority than "?:". So we need a parenthesis around
> "?:".

That seems like a good reason to not use ?:

unsigned int track_offset(const struct kmem_cache *s)
{
if (s->offset != s->inuse)
return s->inuse;
return s->inuse + sizeof(void *);
}

Also this needs a comment about why we're doing this ... something about
the freelist pointer, I think?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-27 15:38    [W:0.075 / U:3.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site