I hit the overlap issue, but it is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code. if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice. Regards zhongjiang On 2017/5/24 18:03, Wei Yang wrote: > The vmap RB tree store the elements in order and no overlap between any of > them. The comparison in __insert_vmap_area() is to decide which direction > the search should follow and make sure the new vmap_area is not overlap > with any other. > > Current implementation fails to do the overlap check. > > When first "if" is not true, it means > > va->va_start >= tmp_va->va_end > > And with the truth > > xxx->va_end > xxx->va_start > > The deduction is > > va->va_end > tmp_va->va_start > > which is the condition in second "if". > > This patch changes a little of the comparison in __insert_vmap_area() to > make sure it forbids the overlapped vmap_area. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index 0b057628a7ba..8087451cb332 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -360,9 +360,9 @@ static void __insert_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va) > > parent = *p; > tmp_va = rb_entry(parent, struct vmap_area, rb_node); > - if (va->va_start < tmp_va->va_end) > + if (va->va_end <= tmp_va->va_start) > p = &(*p)->rb_left; > - else if (va->va_end > tmp_va->va_start) > + else if (va->va_start >= tmp_va->va_end) > p = &(*p)->rb_right; > else > BUG(); -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
