From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dj@redhat.com>
Received: from rhel8.vm.delorie.com (d-159-250-13-23.nh.cpe.atlanticbb.net
 [159.250.13.23])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 080F73874C33
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Fri,  5 Mar 2021 18:42:32 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 080F73874C33
Received: from rhel8.vm.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by rhel8.vm.delorie.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 125IgThE048582
 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Fri, 5 Mar 2021 13:42:30 -0500
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] malloc: Fix a realloc crash with heap tagging [BZ
 27468]
In-Reply-To: <20210305120133.GQ12795@arm.com> (message from Szabolcs Nagy on
 Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:01:34 +0000)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:42:29 -0500
Message-ID: <xnsg59tpbe.fsf@rhel8.vm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_NONE,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_FAIL, SPF_HELO_NONE,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 18:42:34 -0000

Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> writes:
> with tagging on aarch64 (granule = 2*size_t) this does not include
> the prev_ptr word at the end.

So chunksize() includes the overhead to align tagging, but
CHUNK_USER_SIZE() would not?

It's unfortunate that we have such a good name for the chunk, but no
good name for "that portion of the chunk that the application can use".
USER_SIZE vs rawmem vs mem vs whatever.

> I can refactor the code using this macro, or let me know if you have a
> different preference (and if it should be backported with this bug fix
> or have it as a follow up change on master).

An agreement to fix it later is sufficient, let's not mess up the
existing patch set.