Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203824-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <ef24c2be-d6bb-49ec-a72f-7228f284e524@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:28:01 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] slab: make check_object() more consistent
To: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
 Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
 David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
 Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 zhouchengming@bytedance.com
References: <20240605-b4-slab-debug-v2-0-c535b9cd361c@linux.dev>
 <20240605-b4-slab-debug-v2-1-c535b9cd361c@linux.dev>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Autocrypt: addr=vbabka@suse.cz; keydata=
 xsFNBFZdmxYBEADsw/SiUSjB0dM+vSh95UkgcHjzEVBlby/Fg+g42O7LAEkCYXi/vvq31JTB
 KxRWDHX0R2tgpFDXHnzZcQywawu8eSq0LxzxFNYMvtB7sV1pxYwej2qx9B75qW2plBs+7+YB
 87tMFA+u+L4Z5xAzIimfLD5EKC56kJ1CsXlM8S/LHcmdD9Ctkn3trYDNnat0eoAcfPIP2OZ+
 9oe9IF/R28zmh0ifLXyJQQz5ofdj4bPf8ecEW0rhcqHfTD8k4yK0xxt3xW+6Exqp9n9bydiy
 tcSAw/TahjW6yrA+6JhSBv1v2tIm+itQc073zjSX8OFL51qQVzRFr7H2UQG33lw2QrvHRXqD
 Ot7ViKam7v0Ho9wEWiQOOZlHItOOXFphWb2yq3nzrKe45oWoSgkxKb97MVsQ+q2SYjJRBBH4
 8qKhphADYxkIP6yut/eaj9ImvRUZZRi0DTc8xfnvHGTjKbJzC2xpFcY0DQbZzuwsIZ8OPJCc
 LM4S7mT25NE5kUTG/TKQCk922vRdGVMoLA7dIQrgXnRXtyT61sg8PG4wcfOnuWf8577aXP1x
 6mzw3/jh3F+oSBHb/GcLC7mvWreJifUL2gEdssGfXhGWBo6zLS3qhgtwjay0Jl+kza1lo+Cv
 BB2T79D4WGdDuVa4eOrQ02TxqGN7G0Biz5ZLRSFzQSQwLn8fbwARAQABzSBWbGFzdGltaWwg
 QmFia2EgPHZiYWJrYUBzdXNlLmN6PsLBlAQTAQoAPgIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAgMBAAIe
 AQIXgBYhBKlA1DSZLC6OmRA9UCJPp+fMgqZkBQJkBREIBQkRadznAAoJECJPp+fMgqZkNxIQ
 ALZRqwdUGzqL2aeSavbum/VF/+td+nZfuH0xeWiO2w8mG0+nPd5j9ujYeHcUP1edE7uQrjOC
 Gs9sm8+W1xYnbClMJTsXiAV88D2btFUdU1mCXURAL9wWZ8Jsmz5ZH2V6AUszvNezsS/VIT87
 AmTtj31TLDGwdxaZTSYLwAOOOtyqafOEq+gJB30RxTRE3h3G1zpO7OM9K6ysLdAlwAGYWgJJ
 V4JqGsQ/lyEtxxFpUCjb5Pztp7cQxhlkil0oBYHkudiG8j1U3DG8iC6rnB4yJaLphKx57NuQ
 PIY0Bccg+r9gIQ4XeSK2PQhdXdy3UWBr913ZQ9AI2usid3s5vabo4iBvpJNFLgUmxFnr73SJ
 KsRh/2OBsg1XXF/wRQGBO9vRuJUAbnaIVcmGOUogdBVS9Sun/Sy4GNA++KtFZK95U7J417/J
 Hub2xV6Ehc7UGW6fIvIQmzJ3zaTEfuriU1P8ayfddrAgZb25JnOW7L1zdYL8rXiezOyYZ8Fm
 ZyXjzWdO0RpxcUEp6GsJr11Bc4F3aae9OZtwtLL/jxc7y6pUugB00PodgnQ6CMcfR/HjXlae
 h2VS3zl9+tQWHu6s1R58t5BuMS2FNA58wU/IazImc/ZQA+slDBfhRDGYlExjg19UXWe/gMcl
 De3P1kxYPgZdGE2eZpRLIbt+rYnqQKy8UxlszsBNBFsZNTUBCACfQfpSsWJZyi+SHoRdVyX5
 J6rI7okc4+b571a7RXD5UhS9dlVRVVAtrU9ANSLqPTQKGVxHrqD39XSw8hxK61pw8p90pg4G
 /N3iuWEvyt+t0SxDDkClnGsDyRhlUyEWYFEoBrrCizbmahOUwqkJbNMfzj5Y7n7OIJOxNRkB
 IBOjPdF26dMP69BwePQao1M8Acrrex9sAHYjQGyVmReRjVEtv9iG4DoTsnIR3amKVk6si4Ea
 X/mrapJqSCcBUVYUFH8M7bsm4CSxier5ofy8jTEa/CfvkqpKThTMCQPNZKY7hke5qEq1CBk2
 wxhX48ZrJEFf1v3NuV3OimgsF2odzieNABEBAAHCwXwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQSpQNQ0mSwujpkQ
 PVAiT6fnzIKmZAUCZAUSmwUJDK5EZgAKCRAiT6fnzIKmZOJGEACOKABgo9wJXsbWhGWYO7mD
 8R8mUyJHqbvaz+yTLnvRwfe/VwafFfDMx5GYVYzMY9TWpA8psFTKTUIIQmx2scYsRBUwm5VI
 EurRWKqENcDRjyo+ol59j0FViYysjQQeobXBDDE31t5SBg++veI6tXfpco/UiKEsDswL1WAr
 tEAZaruo7254TyH+gydURl2wJuzo/aZ7Y7PpqaODbYv727Dvm5eX64HCyyAH0s6sOCyGF5/p
 eIhrOn24oBf67KtdAN3H9JoFNUVTYJc1VJU3R1JtVdgwEdr+NEciEfYl0O19VpLE/PZxP4wX
 PWnhf5WjdoNI1Xec+RcJ5p/pSel0jnvBX8L2cmniYnmI883NhtGZsEWj++wyKiS4NranDFlA
 HdDM3b4lUth1pTtABKQ1YuTvehj7EfoWD3bv9kuGZGPrAeFNiHPdOT7DaXKeHpW9homgtBxj
 8aX/UkSvEGJKUEbFL9cVa5tzyialGkSiZJNkWgeHe+jEcfRT6pJZOJidSCdzvJpbdJmm+eED
 w9XOLH1IIWh7RURU7G1iOfEfmImFeC3cbbS73LQEFGe1urxvIH5K/7vX+FkNcr9ujwWuPE9b
 1C2o4i/yZPLXIVy387EjA6GZMqvQUFuSTs/GeBcv0NjIQi8867H3uLjz+mQy63fAitsDwLmR
 EP+ylKVEKb0Q2A==
In-Reply-To: <20240605-b4-slab-debug-v2-1-c535b9cd361c@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/5/24 9:13 AM, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> Now check_object() calls check_bytes_and_report() multiple times to
> check every section of the object it cares about, like left and right
> redzones, object poison, paddings poison and freepointer. It will
> abort the checking process and return 0 once it finds an error.
> 
> There are two inconsistencies in check_object(), which are alignment
> padding checking and object padding checking. We only print the error
> messages but don't return 0 to tell callers that something is wrong
> and needs to be handled. Please see alloc_debug_processing() and
> free_debug_processing() for details.
> 
> If the above inconsistencies are not intentional, we should fix it.

It doesn't seem intentional, I don't see why padding specifically would be
different from the other tests here.

<snip>

> -	if (!freeptr_outside_object(s) && val == SLUB_RED_ACTIVE)
> -		/*
> -		 * Object and freepointer overlap. Cannot check
> -		 * freepointer while object is allocated.
> -		 */
> -		return 1;
> -
> -	/* Check free pointer validity */
> -	if (!check_valid_pointer(s, slab, get_freepointer(s, p))) {
> +	/*
> +	 * Cannot check freepointer while object is allocated if
> +	 * object and freepointer overlap.
> +	 */
> +	if (!freeptr_outside_object(s) && val == SLUB_RED_ACTIVE &&

Seems this condition should have been logically flipped?

> +	    !check_valid_pointer(s, slab, get_freepointer(s, p))) {
>  		object_err(s, slab, p, "Freepointer corrupt");
>  		/*
>  		 * No choice but to zap it and thus lose the remainder
> @@ -1370,9 +1368,14 @@ static int check_object(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>  		 * another error because the object count is now wrong.
>  		 */
>  		set_freepointer(s, p, NULL);
> -		return 0;

Should set ret = 0 here?

>  	}
> -	return 1;
> +
> +	if (!ret && !slab_add_kunit_errors()) {

Also 5/6 of slub_kunit tests now fail as we increased the number of recorded
errors vs expected. Either the slab_add_kunit_errors() test above should
have a variant (parameter?) so it will only detect we are in slab-kunit test
(to suppress the printing and taint) but doesn't increase slab_errors (we
increased them for the individual issues already), or simply raise the
expectations of the tests so it matches the new implementation.

Thanks,
Vlastimil

> +		print_trailer(s, slab, object);
> +		add_taint(TAINT_BAD_PAGE, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  static int check_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab)
>