From: Karl Mehltretter <kmehltretter@gmail.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>, Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Karl Mehltretter <kmehltretter@gmail.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: [PATCH] slab: align ZERO_SIZE_PTR to ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2026 12:56:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260808105622.62026-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com> (raw)
The kmalloc entry points are annotated with __assume_kmalloc_alignment
but return ZERO_SIZE_PTR, currently (void *)16, for zero-size requests.
This violates the annotation when ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN exceeds 16.
This can mislead compiler optimizations. Current compilers retain the
ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR() range check, but GCC and Clang eliminate an exact
ZERO_SIZE_PTR comparison after an annotated allocation. Clang's UBSAN
also reports the failed alignment assumption on armv5.
Set ZERO_SIZE_PTR to ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN when it exceeds 16 and keep
the existing value otherwise. Assert that the alignment does not exceed
128, which keeps the sentinel below PAGE_SIZE and the low pointer
poison values. Deriving the value from the architecture also avoids
changing architectures such as s390, where low absolute addresses are
valid.
Fixes: 94a58c360a45 ("slab.h: sprinkle __assume_aligned attributes")
Assisted-by: Claude:claude-fable-5
Signed-off-by: Karl Mehltretter <kmehltretter@gmail.com>
---
Notes:
This version is based on the RFC discussion [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260712120728.96628-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com
A tree-wide audit found no users depending on the numeric value of
ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
The static assertion follows the ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN fallback, the
first point where the macro is guaranteed to be defined.
Tested on bcc44b6785f21:
- armv5, armv7, mips64, ppc44x and sh4 with minimum alignments from
32 to 128
- x86_64, arm64, riscv64, s390x and m68k as unchanged controls
- Clang 21 with CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT on armv5 no longer shows the
alignment assumption report
- no text, data or bss size change on armv5 or arm64
- the exact ZERO_SIZE_PTR comparison remains in armv5 code
generation
The sh4 test needed two unrelated workarounds, both reproduced on the
unpatched tree: compiling tcp_output.c at -O1 because of a GCC 15.2
hang, and disabling USB_OHCI_HCD because of an sm501-usb boot failure.
include/linux/slab.h | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
index 32c9f8ed7ae20..0798a714da87f 100644
--- a/include/linux/slab.h
+++ b/include/linux/slab.h
@@ -259,13 +259,16 @@ enum _slab_flag_bits {
/*
* ZERO_SIZE_PTR will be returned for zero sized kmalloc requests.
+ * It satisfies the alignment promised by __assume_kmalloc_alignment
+ * and keeps the historic value 16 where that is already aligned.
*
* Dereferencing ZERO_SIZE_PTR will lead to a distinct access fault.
*
* ZERO_SIZE_PTR can be passed to kfree though in the same way that NULL can.
* Both make kfree a no-op.
*/
-#define ZERO_SIZE_PTR ((void *)16)
+#define ZERO_SIZE_PTR ((void *)(ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN > 16 ? \
+ ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN : 16))
#define ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) <= \
(unsigned long)ZERO_SIZE_PTR)
@@ -622,6 +625,12 @@ static inline bool kmem_dump_obj(void *object) { return false; }
#define KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW ilog2(KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE)
#endif
+/*
+ * Keep ZERO_SIZE_PTR below PAGE_SIZE and the low pointer poison values.
+ * 128 is the largest in-tree ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN.
+ */
+static_assert(ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN <= 128);
+
/*
* Setting ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN in arch headers allows a different alignment.
* Intended for arches that get misalignment faults even for 64 bit integer
--
2.53.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-08-08 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-08 10:56 Karl Mehltretter [this message]
2026-08-10 14:26 ` [PATCH] slab: align ZERO_SIZE_PTR to ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260808105622.62026-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com \
--to=kmehltretter@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=hao.li@linux.dev \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox