linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 10/19] slab: remove cpu (partial) slabs usage from allocation paths

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <875x95ibx2.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:51:21 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,  Andrew Morton
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,  David
 Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,  Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
  Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,  "Liam R. Howlett"
 <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,  Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
  Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,  Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@...nel.org>,  linux-mm@...ck.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
  linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,  bpf@...r.kernel.org,
  kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,  Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,  "Paul E .
 McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/19] slab: remove cpu (partial) slabs usage from
 allocation paths

Chris Mason <clm@...a.com> writes:

> On 1/10/26 10:41 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 1/10/26 14:20, Chris Mason wrote:
>>> On 1/9/26 3:16 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/25 16:29, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:52:32 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>> By the way, there was another bug in this patch, causing a severe memory
>>>> leak, which the AI unfortunately didn't flag. Petr reported it during
>>>> performance testing and it took me more than a day to find it. Oh well :)
>>>>
>>>> Wonder if things got better since then perhaps, and your or Roman's tools
>>>> would find it today? :)
>>>
>>> Yes and no.  It didn't find the leak until I changed the prompt to say:
>>> "there is a leak, find it".  I'll see if I can improve things...
>> 
>> Thanks. Hmm even if it has to be done like this, it could be a substantial
>> time saver vs finding the leak myself.
>
> Finding the missing break on the first pass was tricky because claude
> consistently focused on concerns about potential NULL pointers and
> mostly ignored the loop flow control changes.
>
> I think I've fixed things by expanding the loop analysis and also
> forcing it to make a more fine grained list of changes to analyze before
> it jumps into the review.
>
> It caught the missing break 5 out of 6 times in a loop, so maybe?
> That's probably the best I can get right now for a generic review, but
> claude will almost always be more reliable with extra directions like
> "there is a leak, find it" on top of the review prompt.
>
> I've pushed out two new commits to:
> https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts
>
> 9a44c271 CS-001.md: pay more attention to loop control flow and memory
> allocations
> 7fad3996 review-core.md: make change categories more fine grained

It helped Gemini too. With these changes even the flash-3 model caught it
from the first attempt.

Thanks