From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from mail-in-08.arcor-online.net (mail-in-08.arcor-online.net
	[151.189.21.48])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mx.arcor.de",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF93DDE2F
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:51:30 +1100 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20061222011706.GA27396@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20061221222303.GA6418@localhost.localdomain>
	<E5477CAE-3FE8-4441-9225-570DD0679765@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20061222011706.GA27396@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <EE6A12AA-3BE6-43DE-AEB2-7477CDAD21DC@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [powerpc] Fix bogus BUG_ON() in in hugetlb_get_unmapped_area()
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:51:09 +0100
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	William Lee Irwin <wli@holomorphy.com>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

>>> +	if (len > TASK_SIZE)
>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> Shouldn't that be addr+len instead?  The check looks incomplete
>> otherwise.  And you meant ">=" I guess?
>
> No.  Have a look at the other hugetlb_get_unmapped_area()
> implementations.  Because this is in the get_unmapped_area() path,
> 'addr' is just a hint,

Ah I missed this vital piece of information, thanks for the
explanation.  Care putting in a code comment pointing this out?

> so checking addr+len would give bogus
> failures.  This test is, I believe, essentially an optimization - if
> it fails, we're never going to find a suitable addr, so we might as
> well give up now.

Yes, it all makes sense now.

>>> -		/* Paranoia, caller should have dealt with this */
>>> -		BUG_ON((addr + len) > 0x100000000UL);
>>> -
>>
>> Any real reason to remove the paranoia check?  If it's trivially
>> always satisfied, the compiler will get rid of it for you :-)
>
> Yes - this is the very bug on which was causing crashes - the "caller
> should have dealt with this" comment is wrong.  The test has been
> moved into htlb_check_hinted_area() and now simply fails (and so falls
> back to searching for a suitable address), rather than BUG()ing.

Yep.

Cheers,


Segher