Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/page_table_check: Do WARN_ON instead of BUG_ON

[Pasha Tatashin]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 9:56 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 11:15:06PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> >  static struct page_table_check *get_page_table_check(struct page_ext *page_ext)
> >  {
> > -     BUG_ON(!page_ext);
> > +     PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_WARN(!page_ext);
> > +
> >       return (void *)(page_ext) + page_table_check_ops.offset;
> >  }
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -137,15 +144,15 @@ void __page_table_check_zero(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> >       struct page_ext *page_ext;
> >       unsigned long i;
> >
> > -     BUG_ON(PageSlab(page));
> > +     PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_WARN(PageSlab(page));
> >
> >       page_ext = page_ext_get(page);
> > -     BUG_ON(!page_ext);
> > +     PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_WARN(!page_ext);
> >       for (i = 0; i < (1ul << order); i++) {
> >               struct page_table_check *ptc = get_page_table_check(page_ext);
>
> Seems like we're going to warn about !page_ext twice?  Or more than
> twice -- once per tail page?
>
> But then we'll crash because page_ext was NULL and offset was small?

Good catch, page_ext should not be NULL, yet I do not want to add
BUG_ON, let me fix this by warning and gracefully returning if
page_ext is NULL

Pasha