On 10/12/2021 10:43 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:43:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:07:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: >>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Rustam Kovhaev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's fair if something like XFS (not meant for tiny systems AFAIK?) >>>>>>> excludes SLOB (meant for tiny systems). Clearly nobody tried to use these >>>>>>> two together last 5 years anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 for adding Kconfig option, it seems like some things are not meant to >>>>>> be together. >>>>> >>>>> But if we patch SLOB, we won't need it. >>>> >>>> OK, so we consider XFS on SLOB a supported configuration that might be >>>> used and should be tested. >>>> I'll look into maybe adding a config with CONFIG_SLOB and CONFIG_XFS_FS >>>> to syzbot. >>>> >>>> It seems that we need to patch SLOB anyway, because any other code can >>>> hit the very same issue. >>>> >>> >>> It's probably best to introduce both (SLOB fix and Kconfig change for >>> XFS), at least in the interim because the combo of XFS and SLOB could be >>> broken in other ways. If syzbot doesn't complain with a patched kernel to >>> allow SLOB to be used with XFS, then we could potentially allow them to be >>> used together. >>> >>> (I'm not sure that this freeing issue is the *only* thing that is broken, >>> nor that we have sufficient information to make that determination right >>> now..) >> >> I audited the entire xfs (kernel) codebase and didn't find any other >> usage errors. Thanks for the patch; I'll apply it to for-next. Which patch, the one that started this thread and uses kmem_cache_free() instead of kfree()? I thought we said it's not the best way? > Also, the obligatory > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --D > >> >> --D
