All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@infradead.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: x86: potential ioremap() issues
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:30:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47C6D37F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080228132404.GB18551@elte.hu>

>> - When ioremap_page_range() fails, remove_vm_area() is used rather
>>   than vunmap() - I think this will cause a 'struct vm_struct' leak.
>
>indeed, good catch - could you check whether the patch below fixes this? 

Yes, it certainly does. You using it rather than vunmap() makes me notice
other inconsistencies (but harmless in nature): The ioremap_change_attr()
failure case should use the same function, and iounmap() could be
simplified using it, too.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

>> - While ioremap() continues to happily map RAM pages (with a bogus
>>   [see below] WARN_ON_ONCE()), cacheability of the memory is not
>>   being restored in iounmap().
>
>correct - these are never supposed to be 'true', generally allocated RAM 
>pages - or like we do with AGP where the pages are exclusively owned we 
>restore their cacheability explicitly.

Never supposed to be doesn't mean they really aren't. I think as long as
one permits it, the other should undo its effects. Further more, it would
seem to me that you could easily ioremap() a hot-pluggable (but
unpopulated) memory range, and get into inconsistencies once that
range gets actually populated. Or am I not seeing a safeguard
preventing this?

>> - The check for RAM pages (except for the WARN_ON_ONCE())
>>   continues to be applied only to lowmem pages.
>
>yes, the biggest constraint from ioremap comes when it applies to pages 
>that are mapped by the kernel. But i guess we could extend this to all 
>things RAM ... the second patch below does this. What do you think? I've 
>queued this up in x86.git#testing as well.

Yes, that's exactly what I would have thought it should look like.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

>> - The WARN_ON_ONCE() itself is applied to the pfn after the
>>   preceding loop finished, i.e. to a pfn that doesn't actually participate
>>   in the operation. Shouldn't it be moved inside the loop?
>
>i removed the WARN_ON_ONCE() from x86.git a few days ago, it's lined up 
>for the next push.

Great, thanks!

Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-28 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-28 12:59 x86: potential ioremap() issues Jan Beulich
2008-02-28 13:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-28 14:30   ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2008-02-29 22:04   ` Oliver Pinter
2008-03-03 10:44     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 15:19       ` Oliver Pinter

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=47C6D37F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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.