From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net"
<kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] modules: Refactor within_module_core() and within_module_init()
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:36:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfG+zVl8aV+UszoE@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e5e58875bd15551d0386552d3f9fa9ee8bc183a2.1643015752.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:22:15AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> within_module_core() and within_module_init() are doing the exact same
> test, one on core_layout, the second on init_layout.
>
> In preparation of increasing the complexity of that verification,
> refactor it into a single function called within_module_layout().
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> ---
> include/linux/module.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> index c9f1200b2312..33b4db8f5ca5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -565,18 +565,27 @@ bool __is_module_percpu_address(unsigned long addr, unsigned long *can_addr);
> bool is_module_percpu_address(unsigned long addr);
> bool is_module_text_address(unsigned long addr);
>
> +static inline bool within_range(unsigned long addr, void *base, unsigned int size)
> +{
> + return addr >= (unsigned long)base && addr < (unsigned long)base + size;
> +}
There's also 'within' at least in arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c and surely
tons of open-coded "address within" code.
Should it live in, say, include/linux/range.h?
> +
> +static inline bool within_module_layout(unsigned long addr,
> + const struct module_layout *layout)
> +{
> + return within_range(addr, layout->base, layout->size);
> +}
> +
> static inline bool within_module_core(unsigned long addr,
> const struct module *mod)
> {
> - return (unsigned long)mod->core_layout.base <= addr &&
> - addr < (unsigned long)mod->core_layout.base + mod->core_layout.size;
> + return within_module_layout(addr, &mod->core_layout);
> }
>
> static inline bool within_module_init(unsigned long addr,
> const struct module *mod)
> {
> - return (unsigned long)mod->init_layout.base <= addr &&
> - addr < (unsigned long)mod->init_layout.base + mod->init_layout.size;
> + return within_module_layout(addr, &mod->init_layout);
> }
>
> static inline bool within_module(unsigned long addr, const struct module *mod)
> --
> 2.33.1
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net"
<kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] modules: Refactor within_module_core() and within_module_init()
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:36:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfG+zVl8aV+UszoE@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e5e58875bd15551d0386552d3f9fa9ee8bc183a2.1643015752.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:22:15AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> within_module_core() and within_module_init() are doing the exact same
> test, one on core_layout, the second on init_layout.
>
> In preparation of increasing the complexity of that verification,
> refactor it into a single function called within_module_layout().
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> ---
> include/linux/module.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> index c9f1200b2312..33b4db8f5ca5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -565,18 +565,27 @@ bool __is_module_percpu_address(unsigned long addr, unsigned long *can_addr);
> bool is_module_percpu_address(unsigned long addr);
> bool is_module_text_address(unsigned long addr);
>
> +static inline bool within_range(unsigned long addr, void *base, unsigned int size)
> +{
> + return addr >= (unsigned long)base && addr < (unsigned long)base + size;
> +}
There's also 'within' at least in arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c and surely
tons of open-coded "address within" code.
Should it live in, say, include/linux/range.h?
> +
> +static inline bool within_module_layout(unsigned long addr,
> + const struct module_layout *layout)
> +{
> + return within_range(addr, layout->base, layout->size);
> +}
> +
> static inline bool within_module_core(unsigned long addr,
> const struct module *mod)
> {
> - return (unsigned long)mod->core_layout.base <= addr &&
> - addr < (unsigned long)mod->core_layout.base + mod->core_layout.size;
> + return within_module_layout(addr, &mod->core_layout);
> }
>
> static inline bool within_module_init(unsigned long addr,
> const struct module *mod)
> {
> - return (unsigned long)mod->init_layout.base <= addr &&
> - addr < (unsigned long)mod->init_layout.base + mod->init_layout.size;
> + return within_module_layout(addr, &mod->init_layout);
> }
>
> static inline bool within_module(unsigned long addr, const struct module *mod)
> --
> 2.33.1
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-26 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-24 9:22 [PATCH 0/7] Allocate module text and data separately Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 1/7] modules: Refactor within_module_core() and within_module_init() Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 12:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-01-24 12:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-01-24 13:01 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 13:01 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-27 11:32 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-27 11:32 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-26 21:36 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2022-01-26 21:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-01-27 11:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-27 11:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 2/7] modules: Add within_module_text() macro Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] modules: Always have struct mod_tree_root Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 4/7] modules: Prepare for handling several RB trees Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 5/7] modules: Introduce data_layout Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 6/7] modules: Add CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_MODULES_DATA_IN_VMALLOC Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 21:43 ` Doug Anderson
2022-01-24 21:43 ` Doug Anderson
2022-01-25 5:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-25 5:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-25 21:10 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-25 21:10 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-26 6:38 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-26 6:38 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-02 23:34 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-02-02 23:34 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-27 16:05 ` Miroslav Benes
2022-01-27 16:05 ` Miroslav Benes
2022-01-27 18:04 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-27 18:04 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` [PATCH 7/7] powerpc: Select ARCH_WANTS_MODULES_DATA_IN_VMALLOC on book3s/32 and 8xx Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 9:22 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-24 12:27 ` kernel test robot
2022-01-24 12:27 ` kernel test robot
2022-01-24 12:27 ` kernel test robot
2022-01-25 20:52 ` [PATCH 0/7] Allocate module text and data separately Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-25 20:52 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-26 5:54 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-01-26 5:54 ` Christophe Leroy
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=YfG+zVl8aV+UszoE@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
/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.