From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, ying.huang@intel.com
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [4/8] CPA: Fix set_memory_x for ioremap
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:45:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200802111345.23372.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080211122705.GA23733@elte.hu>
> Wrong. We do call __pa() on vmalloc ranges (which is a known
> uncleanliness that we intend to fix),
AFAIK nobody does actually currently. Although I expect sooner
or later someone will try since __ioremap() lost its pgprot argument
that made it so powerful. Best would be probably to stick
in some bugs just to catch that.
> but contrary to your claim the
> result is not "random result". On 64-bit it's guaranteed to have a value
> above ~66 TB on 64-bit and hence fails all the filters later on so it
> has zero practical relevance at the moment.
Note that 64bit EFI passes in a fixmap address (they just call
it efi_ioremap). Fixmaps are in the kernel mapping which __pa() handles
and then this gives a low number likely somewhere in memory
and might well trigger.
> On 32-bit we transform it
> down to somewhere around 1GB - where we check it against the BIOS range
> filters - which again cannot trigger. But I do agree that it's unclean
> and needs fixing up.
Are you sure about this for all possible __PAGE_OFFSET values? e.g. consider
1:3 split. Also there is always relocated kernels where kernels might be loaded
quite high.
>
> static int change_page_attr_addr(struct cpa_data *cpa)
> ...
> unsigned long phys_addr = __pa(address);
>
> which for vmalloc area virtual addresses will indeed yield some really
> high (and invalid) physical address. That address will never trigger
> this check:
>
> if (within(address, HIGH_MAP_START, HIGH_MAP_END))
> address = (unsigned long) __va(phys_addr);
That doesn't check phys_addr at all?
> or this check:
>
> if (within(phys_addr, 0, KERNEL_TEXT_SIZE)) {
>
> so we'll never actuall _use_ that phys_addr.
> and it's on our clean-up
> list. But your patch is not a good cleanup because it just hides the
> underlying weakness.
I never claimed it was a cleanup. It's a fix and a optimization
(don't do unnecessary coherency between direct mapping and other
mappings for clearing X -- this means some innocent pages in the
direct mapping won't get split)
Anyways even if you don't want to fix this clear bug I would ask
to still consider the optimization independently.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-11 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-11 9:34 [PATCH] [0/8] Various kernel mapping bug fixes Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [1/8] CPA: Fix gbpages support in try_preserve_lage_page Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 9:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-02-11 10:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 11:01 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [2/8] CPA: Flush the caches when setting pages not present Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 11:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 12:26 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [3/8] CPA: Test the correct mapping alias on x86-64 Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 11:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [4/8] CPA: Fix set_memory_x for ioremap Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 12:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 12:45 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [5/8] Fix logic error in 64bit memory hotadd Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 12:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 13:05 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 13:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 13:44 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-12 10:35 ` Yasunori Goto
2008-02-12 11:20 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [6/8] Account overlapped mappings in end_pfn_map Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 13:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 13:27 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 13:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-11 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-11 14:24 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-11 14:41 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-02-11 15:12 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [7/8] Implement true end_pfn_mapped for 32bit Andi Kleen
2008-02-12 19:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-02-12 19:49 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-12 20:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-02-11 9:34 ` [PATCH] [8/8] RFC: Fix some EFI problems Andi Kleen
2008-02-12 20:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-02-12 20:23 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-12 20:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-02-13 11:05 ` Andi Kleen
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=200802111345.23372.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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