On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 03:05:08PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 07:12:21PM +0000, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:56:09AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:47:35AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:27 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct folio *folio;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > > > + return NULL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (unlikely(is_vmalloc_addr(p)))
> > > > > + folio = page_folio(vmalloc_to_page(p));
> > > >
> > > > Do we need to check for NULL from vmalloc_to_page(p)?
> > >
> > > Idk, can it realistically return NULL after is_vmalloc_addr() returned true?
> > > I would be surprised, but maybe I'm missing something.
> >
> > is_vmalloc_addr() is simply checking the range and some buggy caller can
> > provide an unmapped address within the range. Maybe VM_BUG_ON() should
> > be good enough (though no strong opinion either way).
>
> No strong opinion here as well, but I think we don't have to be too defensive
> here. Actually we'll know anyway, unlikely a null pointer dereference will be
> unnoticed. And it's not different to calling mem_cgroup_from_obj() with some
> random invalid address now.
>
Sounds good. You can add my ack when you send the official version of
the patch.
