From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB6DC3A5A0 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 20:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF892223D for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 20:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TD5HNLsg" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4EF892223D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E0DBA8E0005; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 16:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DBFD28E0003; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 16:04:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CFA3B8E0005; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 16:04:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0125.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.125]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D738E0003 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 16:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC4B62FF for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 20:04:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76722052134.08.unit54_23f8ccba0ca40 X-HE-Tag: unit54_23f8ccba0ca40 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2541 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf46.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 20:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1593420732; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 20:04:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1587240246; bh=0nBNiOhYslBGZi3hU6t23pUnSQPLLvrhg3F00+x4rhQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TD5HNLsgCT1Q3YLxiBZsmnSj79nVmSV8L581P/wdVS3XDs/xJ5hqfRqky6pfIPPV3 dwGpvT4Lkp9bHL78VWhuGSgU0V5jme8Oz0Fy7uP/MX2HYmYyNTzJJTL8eKbEJne0E5 cY0alrHRaPcmdNeP7GotooiUy1MHA3VB8HiAociw= Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:04:05 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Dongli Zhang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joe.jin@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: slub: fix corrupted freechain in deactivate_slab() Message-Id: <20200418130405.b1cc0a2d23cbe30d632a3ec7@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20200331031450.12182-1-dongli.zhang@oracle.com> <20200417181219.bef9b2f9ade92bf3798e3622@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:56:51 -0700 Dongli Zhang wrote: > > @@ -2096,6 +2097,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_ > > slab_fix(s, "Isolate corrupted freechain"); > > break; > > } > > +#endif > > > > do { > > prior = page->freelist; > > > > But it's a bit ugly. How about this? > > Sorry that I did not realize check_valid_pointer() requires CONFIG_SLAB_DEBUG. > > Yes, it is much better to encapsulate it into freelist_corrupted() and just > return false when CONFIG_SLAB_DEBUG is not involved. The check_object() has > similar implementation. > > Should I resend with your "Signed-off-by" or you would just fix it when applying? That's OK. I'll fold the patches together and update the changelog before sending the patch in to Linus.