From: Wandun <chenwandun1@gmail.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, bhe@redhat.com, rppt@kernel.org,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, pratyush@kernel.org,
ruirui.yang@linux.dev, corbet@lwn.net, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, chenhuacai@kernel.org,
kernel@xen0n.name, pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com,
aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, saravanak@kernel.org,
chenwandun@lixiang.com, zhaomeijing@lixiang.com,
everyzhao@126.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] of: reserved_mem: reject reserved memory outside physical address range
Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 17:35:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a8af3cf-5edc-4ca4-b340-12ebeb2ed982@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260506015112.GA286568-robh@kernel.org>
On 5/6/26 09:51, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 02:58:22PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
>> early_init_dt_reserve_memory() does not validate whether the region
>> falls within physical memory. If a device tree incorrectly specifies a
>> reserved memory region outside the physical address range:
>>
>> - For the non-nomap path, memblock_reserve() blindly adds the region
>> to memblock.reserved, creating a stale entry that refers to
>> non-existent memory.
>>
>> - For the nomap path, memblock_mark_nomap() silently fails to match
>> any region in memblock.memory, but still returns success.
>>
>> Add a memblock_overlaps_region() check at the entry of
>> early_init_dt_reserve_memory() to reject such regions before any
>> memblock operation takes place. This also simplifies the existing nomap
>> guard: the original "overlaps && is_reserved" condition reduces to just
>> "is_reserved", since the overlap with physical memory is already
>> guaranteed by the new check.
> While I agree, I suspect we already have cases abusing reserved-memory
> like this.
Sashiko reviewed this patch and told me:
"Historically, the reserved-memory binding is often used to describe
hardware
SRAM, DSP memory, or IOMEM carveouts that reside outside of system RAM."
IIUC, nowdays using mmio-sram DT binding is more appropriate for SRAM or
IOMEM carveouts.
Should I drop this patch or keep it ?
Thanks.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@lixiang.com>
>> Tested-by: Zhao Meijing <zhaomeijing@lixiang.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> index 9d1b0193864c..03c676052dab 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> @@ -112,14 +112,21 @@ static int fdt_fixup_reserved_mem_node(unsigned long node,
>> static int __init early_init_dt_reserve_memory(phys_addr_t base,
>> phys_addr_t size, bool nomap)
>> {
>> + if (!memblock_overlaps_region(&memblock.memory, base, size)) {
>> + phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
>> +
>> + pr_warn("Reserved memory region %pa..%pa is outside of physical memory\n",
>> + &base, &end);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (nomap) {
>> /*
>> * If the memory is already reserved (by another region), we
>> - * should not allow it to be marked nomap, but don't worry
>> - * if the region isn't memory as it won't be mapped.
>> + * should not allow it to be marked nomap. The region being
>> + * physical memory is guaranteed by the overlap check above.
>> */
>> - if (memblock_overlaps_region(&memblock.memory, base, size) &&
>> - memblock_is_region_reserved(base, size))
>> + if (memblock_is_region_reserved(base, size))
>> return -EBUSY;
>>
>> return memblock_mark_nomap(base, size);
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-07 9:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-29 6:58 [PATCH 00/11] kdump: reduce vmcore size and capture time via linux,no-dump Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 01/11] of: reserved_mem: fix region count for nodes with multiple reg entries Chen Wandun
2026-05-06 1:47 ` Rob Herring
2026-05-07 8:41 ` Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 02/11] of: reserved_mem: reject reserved memory outside physical address range Chen Wandun
2026-05-06 1:51 ` Rob Herring
2026-05-07 9:35 ` Wandun [this message]
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 03/11] of: reserved_mem: avoid unconditional save of reg entries in fdt_scan_reserved_mem_late() Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 04/11] of: reserved_mem: skip reserved_mem array allocation when there is nothing to save Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 05/11] of: reserved_mem: add linux,no-dump property support for reserved memory regions Chen Wandun
2026-05-06 14:45 ` Rob Herring
2026-05-07 9:41 ` Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 06/11] of: reserved_mem: save /memreserve/ entries into reserved_mem array Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 07/11] of: reserved_mem: add no-dump crash_mem exclusion helpers Chen Wandun
2026-05-06 14:50 ` Rob Herring
2026-05-07 8:48 ` Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 08/11] arm64: kdump: exclude no-dump reserved memory regions from vmcore Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 09/11] riscv: " Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 10/11] loongarch: " Chen Wandun
2026-04-29 6:58 ` [PATCH 11/11] Documentation: admin-guide: kdump: document linux,no-dump DT property Chen Wandun
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=1a8af3cf-5edc-4ca4-b340-12ebeb2ed982@gmail.com \
--to=chenwandun1@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=chenwandun@lixiang.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=everyzhao@126.com \
--cc=kernel@xen0n.name \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pjw@kernel.org \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=ruirui.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=saravanak@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zhaomeijing@lixiang.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox