On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 03/06/2017 04:45 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03/03/2017 04:52 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/02/2017 04:48 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: >>>>>>> Changes slab object description from: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Object at ffff880068388540, in cache kmalloc-128 size: 128 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff880068388540 >>>>>>> which belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 >>>>>>> The buggy address is located 123 bytes inside of >>>>>>> 128-byte region [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Makes it more explanatory and adds information about relative offset >>>>>>> of the accessed address to the start of the object. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that this is an improvement. You replaced one simple line with a huge >>>>>> and hard to parse text without giving any new/useful information. >>>>>> Except maybe offset, it useful sometimes, so wouldn't mind adding it to description. >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> How about: >>>>> =========== >>>>> Access 123 bytes inside of 128-byte region [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0) >>>>> Object at ffff880068388540 belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 >>>>> =========== >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would just add the offset in the end: >>>> Object at ffff880068388540, in cache kmalloc-128 size: 128 accessed at offset y >>> >>> Access can be inside or outside the object, so it's better to >>> specifically say that. >>> >> >> That what access offset and object's size tells us. >> >> >>> I think we can do (basically what Alexander suggested): >>> >>> Object at ffff880068388540 belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 >>> Access 123 bytes inside of 128-byte region [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0) >> >> This is just wrong and therefore very confusing. The message says that we access 123 bytes, >> while in fact we access x-bytes at offset 123. IOW 123 sounds like access size here not the offset. > > What about > > Object at ffff880068388540 belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 > Accessed address is 123 bytes inside of [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0) > > ? Another alternative: Accessed address is 123 bytes inside of [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0) Object belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 > >> >> >>> What do you think? >>> >> >> Not better. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
