Re: [PATCH] slub: Fix Off-By-One in the While condition in on_freelist()

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 3/4/25 13:18, Lilith Gkini wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:20:03PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Thats true. I still had the return fp == search; in my mind, but with all

Ah, right.

> these changes we can just leave it as return search == NULL; as it was,
> because we are handing the edge cases.
> 
> By the time it reaches that return line it should be fine.

True.

> I was also thinking of fixing two lines to adhere to the "Breaking long
> lines and strings" (2) from the coding-style.

Hm AFAIK checkpatch was adjusted to only warn at 100 lines. While the style
document wasn't updated, we can leave such a small excess with no change.

> ---
>  mm/slub.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 1f50129dcfb3..e06b88137705 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1427,7 +1427,7 @@ static int check_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab)
>   * Determine if a certain object in a slab is on the freelist. Must hold the
>   * slab lock to guarantee that the chains are in a consistent state.
>   */
> -static int on_freelist(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab, void *search)
> +static bool on_freelist(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab, void *search)
>  {
>  	int nr = 0;
>  	void *fp;
> @@ -1437,38 +1437,48 @@ static int on_freelist(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab, void *search)
>  	fp = slab->freelist;
>  	while (fp && nr <= slab->objects) {
>  		if (fp == search)
> -			return 1;
> +			return true;
>  		if (!check_valid_pointer(s, slab, fp)) {
>  			if (object) {
>  				object_err(s, slab, object,
>  					"Freechain corrupt");
>  				set_freepointer(s, object, NULL);
> +				break;
>  			} else {
>  				slab_err(s, slab, "Freepointer corrupt");
>  				slab->freelist = NULL;
>  				slab->inuse = slab->objects;
>  				slab_fix(s, "Freelist cleared");
> -				return 0;
> +				return false;
>  			}
> -			break;
>  		}
>  		object = fp;
>  		fp = get_freepointer(s, object);
>  		nr++;
>  	}
>  
> -	max_objects = order_objects(slab_order(slab), s->size);
> +	if (fp != NULL && nr > slab->objects) {

In case nr > slab->objects we already know fp can't be NULL, no? So we don't
have to test it?

> +		slab_err(s, slab, "Freelist cycle detected");
> +		slab->freelist = NULL;
> +		slab->inuse = slab->objects;
> +		slab_fix(s, "Freelist cleared");
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	max_objects = order_objects(slab_or0der(slab), s->size);
>  	if (max_objects > MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE)
>  		max_objects = MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE;
>  
>  	if (slab->objects != max_objects) {
> -		slab_err(s, slab, "Wrong number of objects. Found %d but should be %d",
> +		slab_err(s, slab,
> +			 "Wrong number of objects. Found %d but should be %d",
>  			 slab->objects, max_objects);
>  		slab->objects = max_objects;
>  		slab_fix(s, "Number of objects adjusted");
>  	}
>  	if (slab->inuse != slab->objects - nr) {
> -		slab_err(s, slab, "Wrong object count. Counter is %d but counted were %d",
> +		slab_err(s, slab,
> +			 "Wrong object count. Counter is %d but counted were %d",
>  			 slab->inuse, slab->objects - nr);
>  		slab->inuse = slab->objects - nr;
>  		slab_fix(s, "Object count adjusted");
> 
> I do have to note that the last slab_err is of length 81 with my change,
> but it looks fine. If that one extra character is unacceptable let me
> know so I can change it to something else.
> Or if you think it's completely unnecessary I could leave it as it was
> in the first place.

Yeah can leave it.

> I just thought since we are trying to modernaze I should fix the length
> as well.
> 
> Also the CHECKPATCH is complaining about the `fp != NULL` that we can
> just check fp on it's own, which is technically true, but wouldn't make
> readability worse?
> I think its better as it's in my diff cause it's more obvious, but if
> you prefer the singular fp I can change it.

I think it's not necessary to test at all but in case I'm wrong, we can do
what checkpatch suggests to be consistent with the while() condition.

> If these changes are acceptable and we don't have anything further to
> change or add I can send it as a proper commit again, But I should
> probably break it into multiple patches.

It's fine as a single patch. Thanks!

> Maybe one patch for the lines and another for the rest? Or should I
> break the bool change in it's own patch?