From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E270FC433F5 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 10:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JLfpY68m0z3c8M for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 21:11:17 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=CxvkMY23; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032; helo=mail-pj1-x1032.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=CxvkMY23; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JLfnn67pxz2ynj for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 21:10:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id gj24so9462548pjb.0 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 02:10:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LhcOzOtDO8pKm5olSdybERYUAZjiaaP0djecbAEsS/E=; b=CxvkMY23MoG9SsIn9LG4LfwR3m0aGwLZFuSce2pSEEFEGvfH1d5C/B7ZnHfIAHCVFz dDZLYxqBRRxLknCD98T8qo94eMR3yV669ywrHaWPvucGSje+YsV06vqvpalgl0XO2g9B uEahXxBVu1Wzh/H8csQLkVqRG+frNxifmoSZye2+hrvPzD/0DWxeCA1ElT8coft/9yUV ulj7pj5Xv5evJlqmyKT9cwAf4/5Fh4jaBUzoVvMryDEjSqEdBCBBozvj3431vH8529AM prxKuAliIBIYdniavtNDy0HsG7cUDbzFccjfAarytZOtgHVZHdFDkF2OJNsdLp7KBbsV I1Cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LhcOzOtDO8pKm5olSdybERYUAZjiaaP0djecbAEsS/E=; b=feMc6pRLRSuPDQHpkUMzYNUP4498GVf4Fkf1C+1o+Gi0kfARTQTFhXQoKbSxiS7+Ja SQOPPDZoK2AVqDpvMxiO0MbTIJLLVchtiZO4vsOlXttMkQkiL/td5Kwcgx6g40JTe3vN JK4r3jWAZ7O/CAgQL7Q08dqzqe2hrUdg4SEmaCb63dfUSlUI6YzHpTfWELiLl/qpfBnA OQ1jc6t7v0QA362E8qs2cBfVdCuqV00TPql811GiGlh64QHLSKim4zdnXBD1o0n/BKB5 yLxRSosjrORSkOIXkVoqhQDWHZy3wlgLwQ+zcCecy0eNPwxlf7XCActGFAROL86y6Ph3 IvrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533zj+foQZKrkE45xIgPial0fFQUKCuH4uXpTXthrAY7x/6odx5z olOkTcL2GzVWaz7sR6P9W+c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9/CJXpyzJ8Au3DqUHi3UOos+BeEGxz/Uc+lcNC+qAtKz6xWjgLvyEBDbkJuRs1r63rqQYpA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:234a:b0:148:a51b:d043 with SMTP id c10-20020a170903234a00b00148a51bd043mr9705488plh.105.1640427030760; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 02:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (121-44-67-22.tpgi.com.au. [121.44.67.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w76sm10870284pff.21.2021.12.25.02.10.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 25 Dec 2021 02:10:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2021 20:10:25 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] powerpc/64: Add VIRTUAL_BUG_ON checks for __va and __pa addresses To: Christophe Leroy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <20190724084638.24982-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20190724084638.24982-4-npiggin@gmail.com> <8926c850-a28b-0600-9116-1c794f80b532@csgroup.eu> In-Reply-To: <8926c850-a28b-0600-9116-1c794f80b532@csgroup.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1640426616.sx4j7ru11d.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Anju T Sudhakar , Madhavan Srinivasan , Reza Arbab Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of December 24, 2021 11:24 pm: > Hi Nic, >=20 > Le 24/07/2019 =C3=A0 10:46, Nicholas Piggin a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> Ensure __va is given a physical address below PAGE_OFFSET, and __pa is >> given a virtual address above PAGE_OFFSET. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin >> --- >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h | 14 ++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>=20 >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/= page.h >> index 0d52f57fca04..c8bb14ff4713 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h >> @@ -215,9 +215,19 @@ static inline bool pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn) >> /* >> * gcc miscompiles (unsigned long)(&static_var) - PAGE_OFFSET >> * with -mcmodel=3Dmedium, so we use & and | instead of - and + on 64-= bit. >> + * This also results in better code generation. >> */ >> -#define __va(x) ((void *)(unsigned long)((phys_addr_t)(x) | PAGE_OFFSET= )) >> -#define __pa(x) ((unsigned long)(x) & 0x0fffffffffffffffUL) >> +#define __va(x) \ >> +({ \ >> + VIRTUAL_BUG_ON((unsigned long)(x) >=3D PAGE_OFFSET); \ >> + (void *)(unsigned long)((phys_addr_t)(x) | PAGE_OFFSET); \ >> +}) >> + >> +#define __pa(x) \ >> +({ \ >> + VIRTUAL_BUG_ON((unsigned long)(x) < PAGE_OFFSET); \ >=20 > With this, it is likely that virt_addr_valid() BUGs on a non valid addres= s. >=20 > I think the purpose of virt_addr_valid() is to check addresses=20 > seamlessly, see check_heap_object() Looks like you're right. How did you catch that? We could change virt_addr_valid() to make that test first. x86 and arm64 both do checking rather than relying on !pfn_valid for < PAGE_OFFSET addresses. Thanks, Nick