Kexec Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: dan.j.williams@intel.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
	Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@redhat.com>,
	bhe@redhat.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, tiwai@suse.de,
	x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com, hpa@zytor.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, dyoung@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:54:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180928135439.GD21895@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <153805812254.1157.16736368485811773752.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:22:02AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> 
> find_next_iomem_res() finds an iomem resource that covers part of a range
> described by "start, end".  All callers expect that range to be inclusive,
> i.e., both start and end are included, but find_next_iomem_res() doesn't
> handle the end address correctly.
> 
> If it finds an iomem resource that contains exactly the end address, it
> skips it, e.g., if "start, end" is [0x0-0x10000] and there happens to be an
> iomem resource [mem 0x10000-0x10000] (the single byte at 0x10000), we skip
> it:
> 
>   find_next_iomem_res(...)
>   {
>     start = 0x0;
>     end = 0x10000;
>     for (p = next_resource(...)) {
>       # p->start = 0x10000;
>       # p->end = 0x10000;
>       # we *should* return this resource, but this condition is false:
>       if ((p->end >= start) && (p->start < end))
>         break;
> 
> Adjust find_next_iomem_res() so it allows a resource that includes the
> single byte at the end of the range.  This is a corner case that we
> probably don't see in practice.

This is how one should write commit messages! Thanks for that - it was a
joy - for a change - to read it :-)

> 
> Fixes: 58c1b5b07907 ("[PATCH] memory hotadd fixes: find_next_system_ram catch range fix")
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> ---
>  kernel/resource.c |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

> diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> index 30e1bc68503b..155ec873ea4d 100644
> --- a/kernel/resource.c
> +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ int release_resource(struct resource *old)
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(release_resource);
>  
>  /*
> - * Finds the lowest iomem resource existing within [res->start.res->end).

What I'm still wondering about is, why was it ever even considered to
have a non-inclusive range. Looking at the git history, especially
58c1b5b07907 and 2842f11419704 - it looks like it was an omission and
then users started using it with inclusive ranges.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-28 13:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-27 14:21 [PATCH 0/3] find_next_iomem_res() fixes Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-27 14:21 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/kexec: Correct KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END off-by-one error Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-28 13:15   ` Borislav Petkov
2018-09-30  9:21   ` Dave Young
2018-09-30  9:27     ` Dave Young
2018-10-15  4:51       ` Dave Young
2018-10-15 11:18         ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-15 13:44         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-10-16  2:51           ` Dave Young
2018-09-27 14:22 ` [PATCH 2/3] resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-28 13:54   ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-09-27 14:22 ` [PATCH 3/3] resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res() iteration issue Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-28 16:41   ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-09 17:30     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-10-09 17:35       ` Borislav Petkov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-09-24 22:14 [PATCH 0/3] find_next_iomem_res() fixes Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-24 22:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces Bjorn Helgaas

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=20180928135439.GD21895@zn.tnic \
    --to=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lijiang@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox