From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44669C6FD1C for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7113E6B0071; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 02:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 69A546B0074; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 02:04:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 53BC56B0075; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 02:04:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406076B0071 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 02:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026DB80B96 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:04:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80606381604.22.2ED4473 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [145.40.73.55]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983C31C0016 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=FZzFs2O2; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of rppt@kernel.org designates 145.40.73.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rppt@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1679724280; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ov2htagtb63R41JDHcMvumvqoc/wbtbidP2mFdNVErqADsi/j+PZJA41V48FIykYWxRJq6 fjno4T5z4BO2QdPm5WspbIjdDqjwWcEw+JSuE6+K1JTeUhk8v8BFiHTuONdg5mdn1fhZWH IB7RqbmKM3fhNwKbBKp6uI7B0FHJzOQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=FZzFs2O2; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of rppt@kernel.org designates 145.40.73.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rppt@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1679724280; h=from:from:sender: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:dkim-signature; bh=VKo++WOh1vqvA9bAwpVMq/gy84bIgdO/2Lu6UxbjpHQ=; b=WCJ3pfLRzrZA+VVuscORvJnVagUVOmQ4VpC8iJKNdrayOdSAq7LysDJ+m2gJT1IlHC+1T6 2WSVV/zDBdv/tZCVxKwMu3d/8dhkgcU5nn3mSkxnfhkiAb4tXEytBN7BOfDQkQ5f+Nyi9O 4var8t7LgMWUmckX+vUh7npz94wEJ40= Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F8CDCE13AB; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B3D0C433EF; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:04:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1679724273; bh=+wEyHh1AH6jsdvCS9CsYpv5kgwOUsB7w1c9v+k9XYSs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FZzFs2O2cV3ha6aBRDsXT4BmvhNVC56k9FeHUWBGoJTYVfoPpH/XfZvHjhrbNDqOi tiFgZQ2RHM441rz48oy5IWnlhzTWH/p1KRoaz9mUHguv6FJQxyqp/7bG6dMVvaFnCz knqHMdYGmW8JY/YzcFRPzQVEEWeMX736iLYY0146slTj9ezcm/j/O8mJighN+2PfUn 8QOa7HeTsl/x24Jyt4NikG8XuGb9QWFjc8OEOeDzHoameWYjK3TwSVYZb4Fi2BnPPx 59v/U2JRN3D1dRmEp7vWQMz8WEqwqEfIVFfPfHNOnVwDSDuYLmHuZR3n1R7YUprVK3 AZbGstKgWyA0A== Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 09:04:21 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: =?utf-8?B?57qq5a6P5a6+?= Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 983C31C0016 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Stat-Signature: jwpdk5rhzx3msmcn75xq8hyq81r73u4y X-HE-Tag: 1679724279-409674 X-HE-Meta: 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 Q45NRg1V kZ2qlbwze+fXMWoWl8qmj7ggeg5flYPyC7zmo4/EVKrUDZnS2qmcgShoXzRGv9unjsxMqWL7StYU1ktjDm8F7ijKfIHeCJ/qhzo61Z/AU/aA/6txwcbsg0irnm5qDz1eiRIMBBbcZBxqWXoZd/AZmJ8p042pjly4t9H7cqfgW102Rou3LbybCer/SfFVj9SDtiEBXvSuPQHw6htRHKXp+r4UzK7ehIFRKlNywIZGfOcz1Fgrl8Fzolt++yWlgohn7vLzaJ7Jb6pyCjQ6hnwLeW4wimM8eIX9aoKnseJ4qJ+TUqqLBkWG7U4VsItEjM0QpIJgcrFmNFXjvZ8jGbuOwlWz5165HVeACkdJZSjLdomkeVybM60BAMNXXNJwv7PMny4PXv+ARUxvAKRTmm3Kcxf6pLBnyF0JHHH6OuAxO6hg8eTo= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 04:15:13PM +0800, 纪宏宾 wrote: > Allow memblock users to specify range where @base + @size overflows, > This will cause the address range information in the debug output to > be displayed incorrectly. Is there a real problem you are trying to solve? > For example, calling memblock_remove(1ULL << PHYS_MASK_SHIFT, > ULLONG_MAX) in arch/arm64/mm/init.c, > would be displayed as: > [ 0.000000] memblock_remove: [0x0001000000000000-0x0000fffffffffffe] > arm64_memblock_init+0x24/0x270 > but we expect the output: > [ 0.000000] memblock_remove: [0x0001000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] > arm64_memblock_init+0x24/0x270 > > Signed-off-by: Hongbin Ji > --- > mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index 25fd0626a9e7..567b99e4355d 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static int __init_memblock > memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type, > int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, > int nid, enum memblock_flags flags) > { > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] nid=%d flags=%x %pS\n", __func__, > &base, &end, nid, flags, (void *)_RET_IP_); > @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t > base, phys_addr_t size, > */ > int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > { > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static int __init_memblock > memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type, > > int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > { > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > @@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ void __init_memblock memblock_free(void *ptr, size_t size) > */ > int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > { > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t > base, phys_addr_t size) > > int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > { > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > @@ -876,7 +876,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t > base, phys_addr_t size) > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP > int __init_memblock memblock_physmem_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > { > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > @@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ void __init memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, > phys_addr_t size) > { > phys_addr_t cursor, end; > > - end = base + size - 1; > + end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", > __func__, &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size); > -- > 2.34.1 -- Sincerely yours, Mike.