netdev - Re: [linux-next:master] BUILD REGRESSION 8cb8311e95e3bb58bd84d6350365f14a718faa6d

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

Message-ID: <20220526084832.GC2146@kadam>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 11:48:32 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] BUILD REGRESSION
 8cb8311e95e3bb58bd84d6350365f14a718faa6d

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 02:16:34AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Bizarre this started showing up now.  The recent patch was:
> 
> -       info->alloced += compound_nr(page);
> -       inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE << compound_order(page);
> +       info->alloced += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> +       inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE << folio_order(folio);
> 
> so it could tell that compound_order() was small, but folio_order()
> might be large?

The old code also generates a warning on my test system.  Smatch thinks
both compound_order() and folio_order() are 0-255.  I guess because of
the "unsigned char compound_order;" in the struct page.

regards,
dan carpenter