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]

Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 02:16:34 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     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 Wed, May 25, 2022 at 03:20:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 23:07:35 +0100 Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is i386, so an unsigned long is 32-bit, but i_blocks is a blkcnt_t
> > i.e. a u64, which makes the shift without a cast of the LHS fishy.
> 
> Ah, of course, thanks.  I remember 32 bits ;)
> 
> --- a/mm/shmem.c~mm-shmemc-suppress-shift-warning
> +++ a/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -1945,7 +1945,7 @@ alloc_nohuge:
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&info->lock);
>  	info->alloced += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> -	inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE << folio_order(folio);
> +	inode->i_blocks += (blkcnt_t)BLOCKS_PER_PAGE << folio_order(folio);

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?

Silencing the warning is a good thing, but folio_order() can (at the
moment) be at most 9 on i386, so it isn't actually going to be
larger than 4096.