From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org,
Stefan Roscher <ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, jim.houston@ccur.com
Subject: Re: idr_get_new_above() limitation?
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:56:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070702155633.720b5667.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200707021919.27251.hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:19:26 +0200
Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> For ehca device driver we're intending to utilize
> idr_get_new_above() and have written a test case, which I'm attaching
> at the end. Basically it tries to get an idr token above a lower boundary
> by calling idr_get_new_above() and then uses idr_find() to check if
> the returned token can be found.
> Here is our observation with 2.6.22-rc7 on ppc64:
>
> Use lower boundary 0x3ffffffc
> [root@xyz idr_bug]# insmod idr_test_mod.ko start=1073741820
> insmod: error inserting 'idr_test_mod.ko': -1 Unknown symbol in module
> [root@xyz idr_bug]# dmesg -c
> i=3ffffffc token=3ffffffc t=000000003ffffffc
> i=3ffffffd token=3ffffffd t=000000003ffffffd
> i=3ffffffe token=3ffffffe t=000000003ffffffe
> i=3fffffff token=3fffffff t=000000003fffffff
> i=40000000 token=40000000 t=0000000000000000
> Invalid object 0000000000000000. Expected 40000000
>
> That means token 0x40000000 seems to be the "upper boundary" of idr_find().
> However the behaviour is not consistent in that it was returned by
> idr_get_new_above().
>
> Looking at void *idr_find(struct idr *idp, int id)
> {
> int n;
> struct idr_layer *p;
>
> n = idp->layers * IDR_BITS;
> p = idp->top;
>
> /* Mask off upper bits we don't use for the search. */
> id &= MAX_ID_MASK;
>
> if (id >= (1 << n))
> return NULL;
>
> while (n > 0 && p) {
> n -= IDR_BITS;
> p = p->ary[(id >> n) & IDR_MASK];
> }
> return((void *)p);
> }
> we found that the if-condition has failed:
> layers = 5
> IDR_BITS = 6
> n = 30
> (id >= (1 << n)) = (0x40000000 >= 0x40000000) = 1
>
> Since MAX_ID_MASK=0x7fffffff, I'm wondering if 0x40000000 is the actual
> upper boundary. Any hints or suggestions are appreciated.
Looks like a bug to me. Really an IDR tree on 32-bit should go all
the way up to 0xffffffff. Certainly up to 0x7fffffff. And the fact
that idr_find() disagrees with idr_get_new_above() is a big hint
that the code is getting it wrong.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
openib-general@openib.org, jim.houston@ccur.com,
Stefan Roscher <ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
raisch@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: idr_get_new_above() limitation?
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:56:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070702155633.720b5667.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200707021919.27251.hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:19:26 +0200
Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> For ehca device driver we're intending to utilize
> idr_get_new_above() and have written a test case, which I'm attaching
> at the end. Basically it tries to get an idr token above a lower boundary
> by calling idr_get_new_above() and then uses idr_find() to check if
> the returned token can be found.
> Here is our observation with 2.6.22-rc7 on ppc64:
>
> Use lower boundary 0x3ffffffc
> [root@xyz idr_bug]# insmod idr_test_mod.ko start=1073741820
> insmod: error inserting 'idr_test_mod.ko': -1 Unknown symbol in module
> [root@xyz idr_bug]# dmesg -c
> i=3ffffffc token=3ffffffc t=000000003ffffffc
> i=3ffffffd token=3ffffffd t=000000003ffffffd
> i=3ffffffe token=3ffffffe t=000000003ffffffe
> i=3fffffff token=3fffffff t=000000003fffffff
> i=40000000 token=40000000 t=0000000000000000
> Invalid object 0000000000000000. Expected 40000000
>
> That means token 0x40000000 seems to be the "upper boundary" of idr_find().
> However the behaviour is not consistent in that it was returned by
> idr_get_new_above().
>
> Looking at void *idr_find(struct idr *idp, int id)
> {
> int n;
> struct idr_layer *p;
>
> n = idp->layers * IDR_BITS;
> p = idp->top;
>
> /* Mask off upper bits we don't use for the search. */
> id &= MAX_ID_MASK;
>
> if (id >= (1 << n))
> return NULL;
>
> while (n > 0 && p) {
> n -= IDR_BITS;
> p = p->ary[(id >> n) & IDR_MASK];
> }
> return((void *)p);
> }
> we found that the if-condition has failed:
> layers = 5
> IDR_BITS = 6
> n = 30
> (id >= (1 << n)) = (0x40000000 >= 0x40000000) = 1
>
> Since MAX_ID_MASK=0x7fffffff, I'm wondering if 0x40000000 is the actual
> upper boundary. Any hints or suggestions are appreciated.
Looks like a bug to me. Really an IDR tree on 32-bit should go all
the way up to 0xffffffff. Certainly up to 0x7fffffff. And the fact
that idr_find() disagrees with idr_get_new_above() is a big hint
that the code is getting it wrong.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-02 22:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-02 17:19 idr_get_new_above() limitation? Hoang-Nam Nguyen
2007-07-02 17:19 ` Hoang-Nam Nguyen
2007-07-02 22:56 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-07-02 22:56 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-03 0:31 ` Jim Houston
2007-07-03 0:31 ` Jim Houston
2007-07-04 14:11 ` Hoang-Nam Nguyen
2007-07-04 14:11 ` Hoang-Nam Nguyen
2007-07-10 20:05 ` [PATCH] fix idr_get_new_above id alias bugs Jim Houston
2007-07-10 20:05 ` Jim Houston
2007-07-11 19:27 ` Hoang-Nam Nguyen
2007-07-11 19:27 ` Hoang-Nam Nguyen
2007-07-12 21:35 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-12 21:35 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-12 21:56 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-07-12 21:56 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-07-13 3:46 ` Tejun Heo
2007-07-13 3:46 ` Tejun Heo
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=20070702155633.720b5667.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hnguyen@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jim.houston@ccur.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=openib-general@openib.org \
--cc=ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=raisch@de.ibm.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.