On 4/7/22 11:48, Marco Elver wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 11:43, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 4/6/22 15:15, Marco Elver wrote: >> > Calling kmem_obj_info() via kmem_dump_obj() on KFENCE objects has been >> > producing garbage data due to the object not actually being maintained >> > by SLAB or SLUB. >> > >> > Fix this by implementing __kfence_obj_info() that copies relevant >> > information to struct kmem_obj_info when the object was allocated by >> > KFENCE; this is called by a common kmem_obj_info(), which also calls the >> > slab/slub/slob specific variant now called __kmem_obj_info(). >> > >> > For completeness, kmem_dump_obj() now displays if the object was >> > allocated by KFENCE. >> > >> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220323090520.GG16885@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/ >> > Fixes: b89fb5ef0ce6 ("mm, kfence: insert KFENCE hooks for SLUB") >> > Fixes: d3fb45f370d9 ("mm, kfence: insert KFENCE hooks for SLAB") >> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Reviewed-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Thanks. >> Given the impact on slab, and my series exposing the bug, I will add this to >> slab tree. > > It's already in Andrew's tree: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220406192351.2E115C385A5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u Ah, missed that. > Does your series and this patch merge cleanly? Yeah the dependency is not on the code level. > If so, maybe leaving in > -mm is fine. Of course I don't mind either way and it's up to you and > Andrew. Yeah should be fine as linux-next will be safe with both trees merged. Thanks. > Thanks, > -- Marco
