On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:23:28 +0100 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/14/18 12:15 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:43:05 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >> @@ -4364,6 +4353,15 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
> >> gfp_t alloc_mask; /* The gfp_t that was actually used for allocation */
> >> struct alloc_context ac = { };
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * There are several places where we assume that the order value is sane
> >> + * so bail out early if the request is out of bound.
> >> + */
> >> + if (unlikely(order >= MAX_ORDER)) {
> >> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
> >> + return NULL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > I know "everybody enables CONFIG_DEBUG_VM", but given this is fastpath,
> > we could help those who choose not to enable it by using
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order >= MAX_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN)))
> > return NULL;
> > #endif
>
> Hmm, but that would mean there's still potential undefined behavior for
> !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, so I would prefer not to do it like that.
>
What does "potential undefined behavior" mean here?
