From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu,
randy.dunlap@oracle.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mgorman@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add debugging boundary check to pfn_to_page
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:49:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1307566168.3048.137.camel@nimitz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1307560734-3915-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net>
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 15:18 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> -#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> -({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> - struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> - __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_MODEL
> +#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> +({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> + struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> + struct page *__page = __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> + WARN_ON(__page->flags == 0); \
> + __page; \
What was the scenario you're trying to catch here? If you give a really
crummy __pfn, you'll probably go off the end of one of the mem_section[]
arrays, and get garbage back for __sec. You might also get a NULL back
from __section_mem_map_addr() if the section is possibly valid, but just
not present on this particular system.
I _think_ the only kind of bug this will catch is if you have a valid
section, with a valid section_mem_map[] but still manage to find
yourself with an 'struct page' unclaimed by any zone and thus
uninitialized.
You could catch a lot more cases by being a bit more paranoid:
void check_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
{
int nid;
// hacked in from pfn_to_nid:
// Don't actually do this, add a new helper near pfn_to_nid()
// Can this even fit in the physnode_map?
if (pfn / PAGES_PER_ELEMENT > ARRAY_SIZE(physnode_map))
WARN();
// Is there a valid nid there?
nid = pfn_to_nid(pfn);
if (nid == -1)
WARN();
// check against NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn;
// check against NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages;
}
> })
> +#else
> +#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> +({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> + struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> + __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> +})
> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_MODEL */
Instead of making a completely new __pfn_to_page() in the debugging
case, I'd probably do something like this:
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_MODEL
#define check_foo(foo) {\
some_check_here(foo);\
WARN_ON(foo->flags);\
}
#else
#define check_foo(foo) do{}while(0)
#endif;
#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
struct page *__page = __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
check_foo(page) \
__page; \
})
That'll make sure that the two copies of __pfn_to_page() don't
accidentally diverge. It also makes it a lot easier to read, I think.
-- Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu,
randy.dunlap@oracle.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mgorman@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add debugging boundary check to pfn_to_page
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:49:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1307566168.3048.137.camel@nimitz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1307560734-3915-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net>
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 15:18 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> -#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> -({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> - struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> - __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_MODEL
> +#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> +({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> + struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> + struct page *__page = __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> + WARN_ON(__page->flags == 0); \
> + __page; \
What was the scenario you're trying to catch here? If you give a really
crummy __pfn, you'll probably go off the end of one of the mem_section[]
arrays, and get garbage back for __sec. You might also get a NULL back
from __section_mem_map_addr() if the section is possibly valid, but just
not present on this particular system.
I _think_ the only kind of bug this will catch is if you have a valid
section, with a valid section_mem_map[] but still manage to find
yourself with an 'struct page' unclaimed by any zone and thus
uninitialized.
You could catch a lot more cases by being a bit more paranoid:
void check_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
{
int nid;
// hacked in from pfn_to_nid:
// Don't actually do this, add a new helper near pfn_to_nid()
// Can this even fit in the physnode_map?
if (pfn / PAGES_PER_ELEMENT > ARRAY_SIZE(physnode_map))
WARN();
// Is there a valid nid there?
nid = pfn_to_nid(pfn);
if (nid == -1)
WARN();
// check against NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn;
// check against NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages;
}
> })
> +#else
> +#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> +({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> + struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> + __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> +})
> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_MODEL */
Instead of making a completely new __pfn_to_page() in the debugging
case, I'd probably do something like this:
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_MODEL
#define check_foo(foo) {\
some_check_here(foo);\
WARN_ON(foo->flags);\
}
#else
#define check_foo(foo) do{}while(0)
#endif;
#define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
struct page *__page = __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
check_foo(page) \
__page; \
})
That'll make sure that the two copies of __pfn_to_page() don't
accidentally diverge. It also makes it a lot easier to read, I think.
-- Dave
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-08 23:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-08 19:18 [PATCH] Add debugging boundary check to pfn_to_page Eric B Munson
2011-06-08 19:18 ` Eric B Munson
2011-06-08 19:31 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-06-08 19:31 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-06-08 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-08 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-08 20:49 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2011-06-08 20:49 ` Dave Hansen
2011-06-10 13:27 ` Eric B Munson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1307566168.3048.137.camel@nimitz \
--to=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=emunson@mgebm.net \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.