On 11/6/18 6:38 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +CC Dmitry
>>
>> On 11/4/18 1:50 PM, Yangtao Li wrote:
>>> WARN_ON() already contains an unlikely(), so it's not necessary to use
>>> unlikely.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Maybe also change it back to WARN_ON_ONCE? I already considered it while
>> reviewing Dmitry's patch and wasn't sure. Now I think that what can
>> happen is that either a kernel bug is introduced that _ONCE is enough to
>> catch (two separate bugs introduced to both hit this would be rare, and
>> in that case the second one will be reported after the first one is
>> fixed), or this gets called with a user-supplied value, and then we want
>> to avoid spamming dmesg with multiple warnings that the user could
>> trigger at will.
>
>
> If you asking me, I am fine both changes.
> I was mainly interested in removing the bogus warnings that actually fire.
OK thanks. Andrew can you update the patch to WARN_ON_ONCE?
Changelog addition:
Also change WARN_ON() back to WARN_ON_ONCE() to avoid potentially
spamming dmesg with user-triggerable large allocations.
>
>>> ---
>>> mm/slab_common.c | 4 +---
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>>> index 7eb8dc136c1c..4f54684f5435 100644
>>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>>> @@ -1029,10 +1029,8 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_slab(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>>>
>>> index = size_index[size_index_elem(size)];
>>> } else {
>>> - if (unlikely(size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE)) {
>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>> + if (WARN_ON(size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE))
>>> return NULL;
>>> - }
>>> index = fls(size - 1);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>
