[PATCH] Fix for the arm64 kern_addr_valid() function

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 08:51:44AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 06:53:24PM +0100, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > >  Fix for the arm64 kern_addr_valid() function to recognize
> > >  virtual addresses in the kernel logical memory map.  The
> > >  function fails as written because it does not check whether
> > >  the addresses in that region are mapped at the pmd level to
> > >  2MB or 512MB pages, continues the page table walk to the
> > >  pte level, and issues a garbage value to pfn_valid().
> > > 
> > >  Tested on 4K-page and 64K-page kernels.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Anderson <anderson@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > index 6b7e895..0a472c4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > @@ -374,6 +374,9 @@ int kern_addr_valid(unsigned long addr)
> > >  	if (pmd_none(*pmd))
> > >  		return 0;
> > >  
> > > +	if (pmd_sect(*pmd))
> > > +		return pfn_valid(pmd_pfn(*pmd));
> > > +
> > >  	pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
> > >  	if (pte_none(*pte))
> > >  		return 0;
> > 
> > Whilst this patch looks fine to me, I wonder whether walking the page tables
> > is really necessary for this function? The only user is fs/proc/kcore.c,
> > which basically wants to know if a lowmem address is actually backed by
> > physical memory. Our current implementation of kern_addr_valid will return
> > true even for MMIO mappings,
> 
> There is still a pfn_valid() check, so MMIO mappings wouldn't return
> true.

Ah yes, I missed that.

> > whilst I think we could actually just do
> > something like:
> > 
> > 
> > 	if ((((long)addr) >> VA_BITS) != -1UL)
> > 		return 0;
> > 
> > 	return pfn_valid(__pa(addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > 
> > Am I missing something here?
> 
> __pa(addr) isn't valid for vmalloc/ioremap addresses (which would pass
> the VA_BITS test above).

Sure, but the only caller of this function already checks the input address
with is_vmalloc_or_module_addr, so that's not an issue.

> I would go with Dave's original patch for now. We've discussing change
> the memory map a bit for the kernel at some point in the future with
> PHYS_OFFSET always 0 and the kernel text/data mapped at a different
> address from PAGE_OFFSET (similar to x86_64). If we get there, this
> function would work unmodified.

Yeah, I'm fine with the patch, it just seems like we're doing a lot of
needless work as it stands.

Will