* [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size @ 2023-03-24 8:15 纪宏宾 2023-03-25 6:04 ` Mike Rapoport 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: 纪宏宾 @ 2023-03-24 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rppt; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel 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. 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 <jhb_ee@163.com> --- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 2023-03-24 8:15 [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 纪宏宾 @ 2023-03-25 6:04 ` Mike Rapoport 2023-03-25 6:25 ` Hongbin Ji 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2023-03-25 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 纪宏宾; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel 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 <jhb_ee@163.com> > --- > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 2023-03-25 6:04 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2023-03-25 6:25 ` Hongbin Ji 2023-03-25 6:42 ` Mike Rapoport 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Hongbin Ji @ 2023-03-25 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel It is just to correct the information displayed by the debugging. The wrong information display is also a problem, but it is not a problem that affects the function Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:04写道： > > 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 <jhb_ee@163.com> > > --- > > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 2023-03-25 6:25 ` Hongbin Ji @ 2023-03-25 6:42 ` Mike Rapoport 2023-03-25 7:04 ` Hongbin Ji 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2023-03-25 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongbin Ji; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 02:25:58PM +0800, Hongbin Ji wrote: > It is just to correct the information displayed by the debugging. > The wrong information display is also a problem, but it is not a > problem that affects the function Please don't top post. Wrong debugging info will be the least of the problems if memblock_add() or membloc_remove() are called with wrong parameters. Please work on cleanups based on code inspection outside of mm/ > Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:04写道： > > > > 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 <jhb_ee@163.com> > > > --- > > > 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. -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 2023-03-25 6:42 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2023-03-25 7:04 ` Hongbin Ji 2023-03-25 7:07 ` Hongbin Ji 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Hongbin Ji @ 2023-03-25 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel Sorry, this is the first time I use email, I checked the top post and bottom post just now, I will modify the sending method. Passing an oversized @size argument is allowed inside membloc_remove(). static inline phys_addr_t memblock_cap_size(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t *size) { return *size = min(*size, (phys_addr_t)ULLONG_MAX - base); } phys_addr_t end = base + memblock_cap_size(base, &size); and internally checks and handles @size parameter overflow Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:42写道： > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 02:25:58PM +0800, Hongbin Ji wrote: > > It is just to correct the information displayed by the debugging. > > The wrong information display is also a problem, but it is not a > > problem that affects the function > > Please don't top post. > > Wrong debugging info will be the least of the problems if memblock_add() or > membloc_remove() are called with wrong parameters. > > Please work on cleanups based on code inspection outside of mm/ > > > Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:04写道： > > > > > > 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 <jhb_ee@163.com> > > > > --- > > > > 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. > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 2023-03-25 7:04 ` Hongbin Ji @ 2023-03-25 7:07 ` Hongbin Ji 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Hongbin Ji @ 2023-03-25 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel Actually @base + @size overflows On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:04 PM Hongbin Ji <jihongbin999@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, this is the first time I use email, I checked the top post and > bottom post just now, I will modify the sending method. > > Passing an oversized @size argument is allowed inside membloc_remove(). > > static inline phys_addr_t memblock_cap_size(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t *size) > { > return *size = min(*size, (phys_addr_t)ULLONG_MAX - base); > } > > phys_addr_t end = base + memblock_cap_size(base, &size); > > and internally checks and handles @size parameter overflow > > Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:42写道： > > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 02:25:58PM +0800, Hongbin Ji wrote: > > > It is just to correct the information displayed by the debugging. > > > The wrong information display is also a problem, but it is not a > > > problem that affects the function > > > > Please don't top post. > > > > Wrong debugging info will be the least of the problems if memblock_add() or > > membloc_remove() are called with wrong parameters. > > > > Please work on cleanups based on code inspection outside of mm/ > > > > > Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:04写道： > > > > > > > > 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 <jhb_ee@163.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > 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. > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours, > > Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-25 7:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-03-24 8:15 [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size 纪宏宾 2023-03-25 6:04 ` Mike Rapoport 2023-03-25 6:25 ` Hongbin Ji 2023-03-25 6:42 ` Mike Rapoport 2023-03-25 7:04 ` Hongbin Ji 2023-03-25 7:07 ` Hongbin Ji
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox