Le 28/08/2018 à 08:38, Nick Hudson a écrit :
On 25/08/2018 14:50, Maxime Villard wrote:
Le 25/08/2018 à 14:37, Nick Hudson a écrit :
On 25 Aug 2018, at 10:58, Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost> wrote:
Le 25/08/2018 à 11:50, Nick Hudson a écrit :
Reversed align and align_offset arguments to pool_cache_bootstrap
appear to be
the problem.
indeed
I rushed this email out... I think pool red zone needs fixing for
non zero
align_offset?
I don't think so, unless you see a specific problem.
pool_redzone_init() only modifies pr_size. align_offset is touched
afterwards,
depending on pr_size, and I don't see why we would need to take care
of it.
I hardly see how the inverted parameters can be correct. Already in
the code
we compute (align - ioff), so if you pass align < ioff, we have a
problem.
Let me try this again...
There is clearly a problem with POOL_REDZONE and align <
align_offset. Currently subr_pool.c has
585: * Silently enforce `0 <= ioff < align'.
586: */
587: pp->pr_itemoffset = ioff %= align;
Either this is made loud or POOL_REDZONE is fixed - which do you prefer?
I would prefer that you explain what is wrong with the line of code you
quoted, because I've read it, and I still don't see what is "clearly"
problematic.