Re: [PATCH v3] kho: validate preserved memory map during population

[Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>]

> > Previously, kho_populate() would succeed regardless of the memory map's
> > state, reserving the incoming scratch regions in memblock. However,
> > kho_memory_init() would later fail to deserialize the empty map. By that
> > time, the scratch regions were already registered, leading to partial
> > initialization and subsequent list corruption (double-free) during
> > kho_init().
>
> Nit: I am guessing the double-free is the scratch regions being freed
> twice? Can you please write that out explicitly?

Sure.

> > +     mem_map_phys = kho_get_mem_map_phys(fdt);
> > +     if (!mem_map_phys) {
> > +             pr_warn("setup: handover FDT (0x%llx) present but no preserved memory found\n",
> > +                     fdt_phys);
>
> Enabling KHO but not using it is a perfectly normal use case. This
> should not be a warning. I don't think we should print anything here
> TBH.

That is fair, I considered pr_info(), but I think you are right, lets
just remove print.

>
> > +             err = -ENOENT;
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
> > +
> >       scratch = early_memremap(scratch_phys, scratch_len);
> >       if (!scratch) {
> >               pr_warn("setup: failed to memremap scratch (phys=0x%llx, len=%lld)\n",
> > @@ -1515,6 +1517,7 @@ void __init kho_populate(phys_addr_t fdt_phys, u64 fdt_len,
> >
> >       kho_in.fdt_phys = fdt_phys;
> >       kho_in.scratch_phys = scratch_phys;
> > +     kho_in.mem_map_phys = mem_map_phys;
>
> Nit: not a fan of duplicating information. This is already contained in
> the FDT. Perhaps make kho_memory_init() also call
> kho_get_mem_map_phys()? And while at it, perhaps make it
> kho_get_mem_map() and the return type struct khoser_mem_chunk * ?

I prefer the current approach, fetch from FDT once, it is just a single address.

> No strong opinion, so fine either way, but I do think it is cleaner.

Thank you for the review.

Pasha