Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Tue 04-04-17 14:13:06, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but we do not have to blow the kernel, right? Why cannot we simply
> > > leak that memory?
> >
> > Because it is a serious bug to attempt to free a non slab object using
> > slab operations. This is often the result of memory corruption, coding
> > errs etc. The system needs to stop right there.
>
> Why when an alternative is a memory leak?

Because the slab allocators fail also in case you free an object multiple
times etc etc. Continuation is supported by enabling a special resiliency
feature via the kernel command line. The alternative is selectable but not
the default.