On 03/06/2017 04:45 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabi...@virtuozzo.com> > wrote: >> >> >> On 03/03/2017 04:52 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabi...@virtuozzo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 03/02/2017 04:48 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: >>>>> Changes slab object description from: >>>>> >>>>> Object at ffff880068388540, in cache kmalloc-128 size: 128 >>>>> >>>>> to: >>>>> >>>>> The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff880068388540 >>>>> which belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 >>>>> The buggy address is located 123 bytes inside of >>>>> 128-byte region [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0) >>>>> >>>>> Makes it more explanatory and adds information about relative offset >>>>> of the accessed address to the start of the object. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think that this is an improvement. You replaced one simple line >>>> with a huge >>>> and hard to parse text without giving any new/useful information. >>>> Except maybe offset, it useful sometimes, so wouldn't mind adding it to >>>> description. >>> Agreed. >>> How about: >>> =========== >>> Access 123 bytes inside of 128-byte region [ffff880068388540, >>> ffff8800683885c0) >>> Object at ffff880068388540 belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 >>> =========== >>> ? >>> >> >> I would just add the offset in the end: >> Object at ffff880068388540, in cache kmalloc-128 size: 128 accessed >> at offset y > > Access can be inside or outside the object, so it's better to > specifically say that. >
That what access offset and object's size tells us. > I think we can do (basically what Alexander suggested): > > Object at ffff880068388540 belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 > Access 123 bytes inside of 128-byte region [ffff880068388540, > ffff8800683885c0) This is just wrong and therefore very confusing. The message says that we access 123 bytes, while in fact we access x-bytes at offset 123. IOW 123 sounds like access size here not the offset. > What do you think? > Not better.
