Re: [PATCH v2] mm: slub: avoid deref of free pointer in sanity checks if object is invalid

[Harry Yoo]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:08:57PM +0800, liqiong wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2025/7/28 13:24, Harry Yoo 写道:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 04:29:22AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 10:06:42AM +0800, liqiong wrote:
> >>>>> In this case it's an object pointer, not a freelist pointer.
> >>>>> Or am I misunderstanding something?
> >>>> Actually, in alloc_debug_processing() the pointer came from slab->freelist,
> >>>> so I think saying either "invalid freelist pointer" or
> >>>> "invalid object pointer" make sense...
> >>> free_consistency_checks()  has 
> >>>  'slab_err(s, slab, "Invalid object pointer 0x%p", object);'
> >>> Maybe  it is better, alloc_consisency_checks() has the same  message.
> >> No.  Think about it.
> > Haha, since I suggested that change, I feel like I have to rethink it
> > and respond... Maybe I'm wrong again, but I love to be proven wrong :)
> >
> > On second thought,
> >
> > Unlike free_consistency_checks() where an arbitrary address can be
> > passed, alloc_consistency_check() is not passed arbitrary addresses
> > but only addresses from the freelist. So if a pointer is invalid
> > there, it means the freelist pointer is invalid. And in all other
> > parts of slub.c, such cases are described as "Free(list) pointer",
> > or "Freechain" being invalid or corrupted.
> >
> > So to stay consistent "Invalid freelist pointer" would be the right choice :)
> > Sorry for the confusion.
> >
> > Anyway, Li, to make progress on this I think it make sense to start by making
> > object_err() resiliant against invalid pointers (as suggested by Matthew)?
> > If you go down that path, this patch might no longer be required to fix
> > the bug anyway...
> >
> > And the change would be quite small. Most part of print_trailer() is printing
> > metadata and raw content of the object, which is risky when the pointer is
> > invalid. In that case we'd only want to print the address of the invalid
> > pointer and the information about slab (print_slab_info()) and nothing more.
> >
> 
> Got it, I will a v3 patch, changing the message, and keep it simple,
> dropping the comments of object_err(), just fix the issue.

Well, I was saying let's start from making object_err() against wild
pointers [1] per Matthew's suggestion.

And with that this patch won't be necessary to fix the issue and will be
more robust against similar mistakes like this?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/aIPZXSnkDF5r-PR5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon