On 02/06/20 at 06:06pm, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:17 PM Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In case of SPARSEMEM, populate_section_memmap() would allocate memmap
> > for the whole section, even we just want a sub-section. This would lead
> > to memmap overwrite if we a sub-section to an already populated section.
> >
> > Just return the populated memmap for non-SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP case.
> >
> > Fixes: ba72b4c8cf60 ("mm/sparsemem: support sub-section hotplug")
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/sparse.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> > index 56816f653588..c75ca40db513 100644
> > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > @@ -836,6 +836,16 @@ static struct page * __meminit section_activate(int nid, unsigned long pfn,
> > if (nr_pages < PAGES_PER_SECTION && early_section(ms))
> > return pfn_to_page(pfn);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If it is not SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, we always populate memmap for the
> > + * whole section, even for a sub-section.
> > + *
> > + * Return its memmap if already populated to avoid memmap overwrite.
> > + */
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP) &&
> > + valid_section(ms))
> > + return __section_mem_map_addr(ms);
>
> Again, is check_pfn_span() failing to prevent this path?
The answer should be yes, this patch is not needed.
>
