From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932112AbdDDT6K (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:58:10 -0400
Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.36]:48488 "EHLO
        resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbdDDT6J (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:58:09 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:58:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
X-X-Sender: cl@east.gentwo.org
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check
In-Reply-To: <20170404194220.GT15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704041457030.28085@east.gentwo.org>
References: <20170331164028.GA118828@beast> <20170404113022.GC15490@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704041005570.23420@east.gentwo.org> <20170404151600.GN15132@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704041412050.27424@east.gentwo.org>
 <20170404194220.GT15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfOt/DKkpjXCZaFdI7YDIFRnA9TSb8dgUxY6DDv1OxqAaJbZwUiSTvMJxjIsfrih0n89RDAN9wTHlIbk8DKaZ5JJUz6UPc814UQ6BPxC9svRcIw8Mvqv2
 8YDL+zt877Ozt/gx4yNGzFF3zK2UE73WvzQe9BflpX41rmv76SCvlb/gXdCN3sdMOlvhPrz9tsaKi0Z8U4LGHwaLRw3bR2E1bQmiPrQsviAWoLNVm6uLbTji
 7zvK05mS1nbhFFhjvTIQZWotb4R+nPs3hGZemFcSxFcBlXvnjn+8bBy2zpS19rAImb/uMJttE3+Nri7tyQuURvh2lXsGO3j8+iGvANcbbXVbI0CaSHfn3Lio
 mkwe/D+PS86DU1tghgpS1xc1JOMDQt/LwGSw9Jb72b3plMQLwWM=
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.