On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:54:12PM -0800, Olav Haugan wrote:
> zsmalloc encodes a handle using the page pfn and an object
> index. On some hardware platforms the pfn could be 0 and this
> causes the encoded handle to be 0 which is interpreted as an
> allocation failure.
What platforms specifically have this issue?
>
> To prevent this false error we ensure that the encoded handle
> will not be 0 when allocation succeeds.
>
> Change-Id: Ifff930dcf254915b497aec5cb36f152a5e5365d6
What is this? What can anyone do with it?
> Signed-off-by: Olav Haugan <ohaugan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c b/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
> index 523b937..0e32c0f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
> @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ static void *obj_location_to_handle(struct page *page, unsigned long obj_idx)
> }
>
> handle = page_to_pfn(page) << OBJ_INDEX_BITS;
> - handle |= (obj_idx & OBJ_INDEX_MASK);
> + handle |= ((obj_idx + 1) & OBJ_INDEX_MASK);
>
> return (void *)handle;
> }
> @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ static void obj_handle_to_location(unsigned long handle, struct page **page,
> unsigned long *obj_idx)
> {
> *page = pfn_to_page(handle >> OBJ_INDEX_BITS);
> - *obj_idx = handle & OBJ_INDEX_MASK;
> + *obj_idx = (handle & OBJ_INDEX_MASK) - 1;
> }
I need someone who knows how to test this code to ack it before I can
take it...
And I thought we were deleting zsmalloc anyway, why are you using this
code? Isn't it no longer needed anymore?
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
