From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C52CA04C1; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:25:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984F42956; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:25:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61999235 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:25:24 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574256323; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1gsCIc59JWypFiUX7WFU/7EIsyNRJG0rYPvmGfan8h4=; b=iSuyc56p0GHh0mkcIqfe4lvqTvcU50oLHWivO/qoAJmev77wNwVFqTYPTfa8wmk523evAb jhF2C7eJvd8pY4uyrVTzzqt0AMjMo1cYLsOTTnCI+L1gzUfexntks2VRqDuiiGoHHss9H+ j/1FxGDxYDIpFhmDcBCZWlRD22pVLeE= Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-341-mgVdsQRmPme_pv0QI7ioFQ-1; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 08:25:21 -0500 Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id c5so11296711vkm.12 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:25:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WT7vsoj+yTnmishlAS0EsgpKoIVamueg9Xo3/MUO3ks=; b=B1+JduALIBs47J28N2EjrXH8PvuyFP+KD+ZDjCX6lchqct5s5ypJ8qnvYeDVcNsiXX u3JUrihSzPKNAqFblKOPWstxWGQH4CgRUxJTa4LJAMIxfiE30lAlIS9uKe3x1EKpUmHx glk3BnocWvFSG+67b3vFR+ldpr35IC+iDb7lFnQG+2dAHJHGUNlcY/cmInoGaD7d84O4 //bOcZzwK+lHu92a14lgq7nCf+1CEwwB+/t0h9h+ooVq2xQj3WuWVECiqQbhmgQigWU1 4L4Niu/+reBJUY2dGQRARYgo49cggxivFocGWEsUw4Av2560ly6sVU68n3AkmAwvXUYP /97A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBOXEBe3KES7CYuIrckftFVPFsPaPQefJHlvUsxQIgM2C7S3DE Fes3AvGSs/8Oo9F5Qy2F1j89HEA2WwSRfaSx5AcAaQA3jSZpB5oWshleGU0hd7Kr9lRhceLUb9F 3+1ZThIIvyIVVpA7yvvc= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f3c7:: with SMTP id j7mr1637825vsn.141.1574256320669; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:25:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxWTGUqhBkR6Sdc4G2CPW6n6XQoda4qU8PvuVrKPKUf4NZpYN/0Vqe9jH4HujrP6iSQiLAjTaImbt3+5bWBAC4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f3c7:: with SMTP id j7mr1637810vsn.141.1574256320295; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:25:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1573570228-15676-1-git-send-email-xuemingl@mellanox.com> <1573570228-15676-2-git-send-email-xuemingl@mellanox.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:25:09 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" Cc: Anatoly Burakov , Asaf Penso , dev , dpdk stable X-MC-Unique: mgVdsQRmPme_pv0QI7ioFQ-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] malloc: fix realloc padded element size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:12 AM Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Marchand > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 4:47 AM > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li ; Anatoly Burakov > > > > Cc: Asaf Penso ; dev ; dpdk stable > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] malloc: fix realloc padded eleme= nt > > size > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:50 PM Xueming Li > > wrote: > > > > > > When resize a memory with next element, the original element size gro= ws. > > > If the orginal element has padding, the real inner element size didn'= t > > > grow as well and this causes trailer verification failure when malloc > > > debug enabled. > > > > I did not see this when running the malloc_autotest with debug enabled. > > What is missing for me to catch it? > > > Yes, it happens rarely, depends on memory fragment. I only caught this in= middle of a long test. > > > > > Just a bit chilly to apply this series. > > The first patch seems an optimisation. > > The second one seems more interesting if we fix the debug mode, but I > > suppose we can live without them in 19.11. > Few people enable memory debug option, they are there for years. Had a discussion offlist with Anatoly. Those two issues are hard to catch but the fixes are relevant and Anatoly is confident. I will take this in rc3. Series applied, thanks. --=20 David Marchand