From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx171.postini.com [74.125.245.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4766F6B004A for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dadq36 with SMTP id q36so1892898dad.8 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:01:59 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [BUG]memblock: fix overflow of array index Message-ID: <20120426150159.GA27486@google.com> References: <20120425222819.GF8989@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Teoh Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-mm@kvack.org Hello, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:50:58AM +0800, Peter Teoh wrote: > Thanks for the reply. Just an educational question: is it possible > to set one-byte per memblock? And what is the minimum memblock > size? 1 byte. > Even if 2G memblock is a huge number, it still seemed like a bug to me > that there is no check on the maximum number (which is 2G) of this > variable (assuming signed int). Software can always purposely push > that number up and the system can panic? Yeah, if somebody messes the BIOS / firmware to oblivion. I don't really care at that point tho. memblock is a boot time memory allocator and it assumes BIOS / firmware isn't completely crazy. It uses contiguous tables to describe all the blocks, walks them one-by-one for allocation and even compacts them. Well before memblock fails from any of the above, the machine would be failing miserably in firmware / BIOS. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org