Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Tue 04-04-17 14:58:06, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > On Tue 04-04-17 14:13:06, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, but we do not have to blow the kernel, right? Why cannot we simply
> > > > leak that memory?
> > >
> > > Because it is a serious bug to attempt to free a non slab object using
> > > slab operations. This is often the result of memory corruption, coding
> > > errs etc. The system needs to stop right there.
> >
> > Why when an alternative is a memory leak?
> 
> Because the slab allocators fail also in case you free an object multiple
> times etc etc. Continuation is supported by enabling a special resiliency
> feature via the kernel command line. The alternative is selectable but not
> the default.
 
I disagree! We should try to continue as long as we _know_ that the
internal state of the allocator is still consistent and a further
operation will not spread the corruption even more. This is clearly not
the case for an invalid pointer to kfree.

I can see why checking for an early allocator corruption is not always
feasible and you can only detect after-the-fact but this is not the case
here and putting your system down just because some buggy code is trying
to free something it hasn't allocated is not really useful. I completely
agree with Linus that we overuse BUG way too much and this is just
another example of it.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>