From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD6A19DF60 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723729287; cv=none; b=XhfShcu2JxE5R6IHK2oFtkr6nsVL1nTvfwG40v0ZCAMjIbHUTF4oZBDs6d7rl7cZVD2tTxlt0oPRWwbCqQzrTUNTELy1u3R8WQitu6yhlN5lQFn2Qj3fELXDCvbVSacetGnX2Vwm8zcBgUAX1hrR/ltuPTQjnHrHl4HbnJxtBtY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723729287; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HEv3T2OJg63ZWuoNiRtvUM0qIH1Po5TBb51QSabocZk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K31X7f+PyCzvilgvV7rbfblqFn1BqwRzPIvLskEJ7LeogHvQH2X6jBl+e3xyz8QhQITle+ij45Mgpe2vOthFj4l4xspulEb92l/YIdLH6mCneoFtTcfZKWuxIgcafiwo1UbawoYmCl3F2mLhNPBnE/Jqo94JNjFHEasrhq6hlAM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=vtFlbMjn; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=69CflsgF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="vtFlbMjn"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="69CflsgF" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1723729282; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nUPq7nTcZ/5rB57N+BBqv8C/kYVFpDlbnSC0IU4n96M=; b=vtFlbMjnttTNEK6DwcBO/ep/1+D5odt8EKylE38aUyYa6fbrCocecsx9NQuPf6y5yAVv/8 el6JhM4lL8oeQ/FGZ0J9tJmMj3jIl1QefPLFaFufjSfHp++orcg4w2UOtmDuVliXpclK3N hDEaXwAOEGzFHwH49JX54vsHHjvTulvXGhtBlBCTnJHvBi8MAAyyQ2dj+X04eIdOwuViyg ItLeyE1iq2S94j9j1VDFHxmXi2MxwPaHnlWaVnxpQAdCRefc7mtY+iBI2HhH3ay2GO9xwr 3zhwuShYns5oWv/hwhKhfXmW5z+5Su9OGa7M+TfrYaaBr6mn0q4Ah+UBuwQsFw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1723729282; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nUPq7nTcZ/5rB57N+BBqv8C/kYVFpDlbnSC0IU4n96M=; b=69CflsgFp4EQ2HSJQhGLkJXTsuc003qsFjiyDb0DxnOcAGXsvfATfmFrWCKigUDGMiA0Ep 9/Mn8wZyaWjPQ+Dg== To: Christoph Hellwig , Alistair Popple Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Max Ramanouski , x86@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jniethe@nvidia.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/ioremap: Use is_ioremap_addr() in iounmap() In-Reply-To: <87wmkjnqi4.ffs@tglx> References: <20240812203538.82548-1-max8rr8@gmail.com> <878qwzpfbi.ffs@tglx> <87le0zmhdp.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87wmkjnqi4.ffs@tglx> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:41:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87jzghnbst.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Aug 14 2024 at 16:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14 2024 at 05:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:08:23PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: >>> I would tend to agree and had the same thought when we found this. At >>> least some kind of message (WARN_ON, WARN_ON_ONCE, printk, etc) would >>> have made the issue we were debugging much more obvious. FWIW I have >>> tested running with a WARN_ON() there and it never fired except in the >>> bug scenario. >> >> Various architectures had either an early ioremap variant that got >> silently ignored here, or magic carveout that don't get remapped at all. >> None of this should currently apply to x86, though. > > So I'm inclined to have: > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(is_ioremap_addr(addr))) > return; > > in the x86 variant then. Max, care to provide that with a reasonable change log? Thanks, tglx