From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AA46B02E1 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 04:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id p9so79853326pfj.8 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 01:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com. [45.249.212.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p12si6136254pli.219.2017.05.02.01.02.08 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 May 2017 01:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <59083C5B.5080204@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 15:59:23 +0800 From: Xishi Qiu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , Joonsoo Kim , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Rik van Riel , Shakeel Butt Cc: Linux MM , LKML , zhong jiang Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" to test physical address 0x6c80000000000 Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() always return 1, so it causes crash. My question is that should the user assure the physical address is valid? ... [ 169.147578] ? panic+0x1f1/0x239 [ 169.150789] oops_end+0xb8/0xd0 [ 169.153910] pgtable_bad+0x8a/0x95 [ 169.157294] __do_page_fault+0x3aa/0x4a0 [ 169.161194] do_page_fault+0x30/0x80 [ 169.164750] ? do_syscall_64+0x175/0x180 [ 169.168649] page_fault+0x28/0x30 Thanks, Xishi Qiu -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org