On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 2:47 AM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:52 PM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Do we still need this patch? > > > > I just tried removing this patch from the series; without it, the > > kmem_cache_invalid_free kunit test fails because the kmem_cache_free() > > no longer synchronously notices that the pointer is misaligned. I > > guess I could change the testcase like this to make the tests pass > > without this patch, but I'd like to hear from you or another KASAN > > person whether you think that's a reasonable change: > > Ah, I see. I think detecting a bug earlier if we can is better. So I > don't mind keeping this patch, was just confused by the commit > message. ack, changed it in v4 > Adding on top of my comments from before: I think if you move > check_slab_free() out of poison_slab_object() (but add to > __kasan_mempool_poison_object()), and move is_kfence_address() and > kasan_arch_is_ready() to poison_slab_object()'s callers, you won't > even need the free_validation_result enum, so the patch should become > simpler. right, makes sense, changed in v4 > You can also rename check_slab_free() to check_slab_allocation() to > make it be named similarly to the already existing > check_page_allocation(). done in v4
