On 12/29/23 at 12:10pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:34:18 +0800 Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Because memory ranges in mem->ranges are stored in ascending order, when we > > detect `p_end < start`, we can break the for loop early, as the subsequent > > memory ranges must also be outside the range we are looking for. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Patch "[PATCH 2/2] crash_core: fix out-of-bounds access check in > > crash_exclude_mem_range()" can be ignored, use this patch instead. > > > > Some reviewer input on this would be helpful please? I suggested this in below discussion thread: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZYEOshALGbDKwSdc@MiWiFi-R3L-srv/T/#u So it would be good if squashing this into patch 3 of another patch thread you are asking: [PATCH 3/3] crash_core: fix and simplify the logic of crash_exclude_mem_range() And I would suggest withdrawing Yuntao's below patch on your mm-nonmm-unstable branch. 961c69e9f1bf x86/crash: fix potential cmem->ranges array overflow Becase there's better one to fix the potential oob from fuqiang, although fuqiang need improve his patch log. [PATCH v3] x86/kexec: fix potential cmem->ranges out of bounds https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231222121855.148215-1-fuqiang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > > --- a/kernel/crash_core.c > > +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c > > @@ -575,9 +575,12 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem, > > p_start = mstart; > > p_end = mend; > > > > - if (p_start > end || p_end < start) > > + if (p_start > end) > > continue; > > > > + if (p_end < start) > > + break; > > + > > /* Truncate any area outside of range */ > > if (p_start < start) > > p_start = start; > > -- > > 2.43.0 > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
