On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:36 AM Vincent Whitchurch
<vincent.whitchurch@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The reserved-memory overlap detection code fails to detect overlaps if
> either of the regions starts at address 0x0. For some reason the code
> explicitly checks for and ignores such regions, but this check looks
> invalid. Remove the check and fix this detection.
Wouldn't 'base' be 0 for nodes that have a 'size' and no address? The
base in those cases isn't set until later when
__reserved_mem_alloc_size() is called.
>
> For example, no overlap is currently reported for this case:
>
> foo@0 {
> reg = <0x0000 0x2000>;
> };
>
> bar@1000 {
> reg = <0x1000 0x1000>;
> };
>
> but it is after this patch:
>
> OF: reserved mem: OVERLAP DETECTED!
> foo@0 (0x00000000--0x00002000) overlaps with bar@1000 (0x00001000--0x00002000)
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> index 46b9371c8a33..1c5259e3e81f 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> @@ -217,8 +217,7 @@ static void __init __rmem_check_for_overlap(void)
>
> this = &reserved_mem[i];
> next = &reserved_mem[i + 1];
> - if (!(this->base && next->base))
> - continue;
> +
> if (this->base + this->size > next->base) {
> phys_addr_t this_end, next_end;
>
> --
> 2.28.0
>
