[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZLyI48BYnecaROmZ@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/page_table_check: Do WARN_ON instead of BUG_ON
On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 11:15:06PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> static struct page_table_check *get_page_table_check(struct page_ext *page_ext)
> {
> - BUG_ON(!page_ext);
> + PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_WARN(!page_ext);
> +
> return (void *)(page_ext) + page_table_check_ops.offset;
> }
[...]
> @@ -137,15 +144,15 @@ void __page_table_check_zero(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> struct page_ext *page_ext;
> unsigned long i;
>
> - BUG_ON(PageSlab(page));
> + PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_WARN(PageSlab(page));
>
> page_ext = page_ext_get(page);
> - BUG_ON(!page_ext);
> + PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_WARN(!page_ext);
> for (i = 0; i < (1ul << order); i++) {
> struct page_table_check *ptc = get_page_table_check(page_ext);
Seems like we're going to warn about !page_ext twice? Or more than
twice -- once per tail page?
But then we'll crash because page_ext was NULL and offset was small?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists