From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: ioremap: fix physical address check
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:13:33 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C15F2BD.9020904@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100614175912.976f5878.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Thank you Hiroyuki.
So many bugs in ioremap()...
Will try with those bugs fixed.
Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige
(2010/06/14 17:59), KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:18:23 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:43:27 -0700
>> "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/11/2010 02:20 AM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>>>> If the physical address is too high to be handled by ioremap() in
>>>> x86_32 PAE (e.g. more than 36-bit physical address), ioremap() must
>>>> return error (NULL). However, current x86 ioremap try to map this too
>>>> high physical address, and it causes unexpected behavior.
>>>
>>> What unexpected behavior? It is perfectly legitimately to map such a
>>> high address in PAE mode. We have a 36-bit kernel-imposed limit on
>>> *RAM* in 32-bit mode (because we can't manage more than that), but there
>>> is no reason it should apply to I/O.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry for lack of study.
>
> Now, __ioremap_caller() gets 64 bit argument as physical address.
> == 2.6.35-rc2 ==
> static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> unsigned long size, unsigned long prot_val, void *caller)
> {
> ==
>
> And check physical address is valid based on the value got from cpuid.
> ==
> if (!phys_addr_valid(phys_addr)) {
> printk(KERN_WARNING "ioremap: invalid physical address %llx\n",
> (unsigned long long)phys_addr);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> return NULL;
> }
> ==
>
>
> At 1st, this seems buggy.
> ==
> /*
> * Don't allow anybody to remap normal RAM that we're using..
> */
> for (pfn = phys_addr>> PAGE_SHIFT;
> (pfn<< PAGE_SHIFT)< (last_addr& PAGE_MASK);
> pfn++) {
>
> int is_ram = page_is_ram(pfn);
>
> if (is_ram&& pfn_valid(pfn)&& !PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn)))
> return NULL;
> WARN_ON_ONCE(is_ram);
> }
> ==
> If phys_addr> 44bit, pfn should be 64bit. don't it ?
> Then, page_is_ram should eat 64bit arguments.
>
> But here, assume phys_addr< 44bit and continue.
>
> Next,
> ===
> offset = phys_addr& ~PAGE_MASK;
> phys_addr&= PAGE_MASK;
> size = PAGE_ALIGN(last_addr+1) - phys_addr;
>
> this mask ops is bad. as the patch-1 shows.
>
> And, finally, calls get_vm_area.
>
> ==
> /*
> * Ok, go for it..
> */
> area = get_vm_area_caller(size, VM_IOREMAP, caller);
> if (!area)
> goto err_free_memtype;
> area->phys_addr = phys_addr;
> vaddr = (unsigned long) area->addr;
> ==
> Because area->phys_addr is 32bit. This may break something if we unmap this later.
>
> And, page table operation is this.
> ==
> if (ioremap_page_range(vaddr, vaddr + size, phys_addr, prot))
> goto err_free_area;
> ==
>
> Let's see lib/ioremap.c
> ==
> int ioremap_page_range(unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long end, unsigned long phys_addr, pgprot_t prot)
> {
> pgd_t *pgd;
>
> ==
>
> Oh, phys_addr is unsigned long again....Then, Kenji-san, what's buggy is this check.
> I think.
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-14 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-11 9:17 [RFC][PATCH 0/4] x86: ioremap() problem in X86_32 PAE Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-11 9:18 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86: ioremap: fix wrong address masking Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-11 9:20 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86: ioremap: fix physical address check Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-11 17:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-14 0:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-14 8:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-14 9:13 ` Kenji Kaneshige [this message]
2010-06-14 11:06 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 18:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-15 2:21 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 20:16 ` Rolf Eike Beer
2010-06-15 2:33 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 1:54 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 6:38 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2010-06-14 8:23 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 9:02 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 15:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-14 15:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-14 8:27 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-14 15:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-11 9:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86: ioremap: remove physical address warning message Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-11 17:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-14 2:06 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-11 9:21 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86: ioremap: fix normal ram range check Kenji Kaneshige
2010-06-11 17:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/4] x86: ioremap() problem in X86_32 PAE H. Peter Anvin
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=4C15F2BD.9020904@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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