Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Fix incorrect checkings of s->offset

[Waiman Long]

On 4/27/20 9:38 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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)
> > > > {
> > > >  ÂÂÂÂreturn 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?
I can see a simple if-else to make it easier to read.

Thanks,
Longman