From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751796AbdEBJdP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 2 May 2017 05:33:15 -0400
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189]:5912 "EHLO
        szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750995AbdEBJdH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 2 May 2017 05:33:07 -0400
Message-ID: <590851CC.2070402@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:30:52 +0800
From: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash
References: <59083C5B.5080204@huawei.com> <20170502084323.GG14593@dhcp22.suse.cz> <590848B0.2000801@huawei.com> <20170502091630.GH14593@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20170502091630.GH14593@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.177.25.179]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
        refid=str=0001.0A020206.59085241.00E5,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0,
        ip=0.0.0.0,
        so=2014-11-16 11:51:01,
        dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1255e3d209ba8929be63aadbb1b03c05
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2017/5/2 17:16, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Tue 02-05-17 16:52:00, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>> Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" to test physical address 0x6c80000000000
>>>> Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range()
>>>> always return 1, so it causes crash.
>>>>
>>>> My question is that should the user assure the physical address is valid?
>>>
>>> We already seem to be checking range_is_allowed(). What is your
>>> CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM setting? The code seems to be rather confusing but
>>> my assumption is that you better know what you are doing when mapping
>>> this file.
>>>
>>
>> HI Michal,
>>
>> CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM=y, and range_is_allowed() will skip memory, but
>> 0x6c80000000000 is not memory, it is just a invalid address, so it cause
>> crash. 
> 
> OK, I only now looked at the value. It is beyond addressable limit
> (for 47b address space). None of the checks seems to stop this because
> range_is_allowed() resp. its devmem_is_allowed() will allow it as a
> non RAM (!page_is_ram check). I am not really sure how to fix this or
> whether even we should try to fix this particular problem. As I've said
> /dev/mem is dangerous and you should better know what you are doing when
> accessing it.
> 

OK, I know, thank you!

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu