[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200429182508.GU29705@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:25:08 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/slub: Fix incorrect interpretation of s->offset
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 06:42:55PM +0200, Markus Elfring 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").
>
> Will any further collateral evolution become interesting?
What do you mean by this question?
> > +static inline unsigned int get_info_end(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > +{
> > + if (freeptr_outside_object(s))
> > + return s->inuse + sizeof(void *);
> > + else
> > + return s->inuse;
> > +}
>
> How do you think about the following source code variants?
>
> + return freeptr_outside_object(s)
> + ? s->inuse + sizeof(void *)
> + : s->inuse;
That is less clear than the version Wayman posted.
> > static struct track *get_track(struct kmem_cache *s, void *object,
> > enum track_item alloc)
> > {
> > struct track *p;
> >
> > - if (s->offset)
> > - p = object + s->offset + sizeof(void *);
> > - else
> > - p = object + s->inuse;
> > + p = object + get_info_end(s);
> >
> > return p + alloc;
> > }
>
> + struct track *p = object + get_info_end(s);
>
> return p + alloc;
Yes, I think that's an improvement.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists