On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:29:02 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:19:15 +0800 Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > mem->nr_ranges represents the current number of elements stored in > > the mem->ranges array, and mem->max_nr_ranges represents the maximum number > > of elements that the mem->ranges array can hold. Therefore, the correct > > array out-of-bounds check should be mem->nr_ranges >= mem->max_nr_ranges. > > > > This does not apply after your own "crash_core: fix and simplify the > logic of crash_exclude_mem_range()". What should be done? Hi Andrew, I actually prefer the "crash_core: fix and simplify the logic of crash_exclude_mem_range()" patch as it makes the final code more concise and clear, and less prone to errors. The current code is too strange, I guess no one can understand why there is a break in the for loop when they read this code for the first time. Moreover, I think the current code is too fragile, it relies on callers using this function correctly to ensure its correctness, rather than being able to guarantee the correctness on its own. I even feel that this function is very likely to have bugs again as the code evolves. However, Baoquan also has his own considerations, he suggests keeping the code as it is. The link below is our detailed discussion on this issue: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231214163842.129139-3-ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx/t/#mfd78a97e16251bcb190b0957a0b6cb4b0a096b54 The final decision on whether to apply that patch is up to you and Baoquan, if you choose to apply that patch, this patch can be ignored. But if you decide not to apply that patch, then this patch must be applied, as it fixes a bug in the crash_exclude_mem_range() function. Sincerely, Yuntao _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
