On 04/02/2013 12:10 PM, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
>
> Hi, this is exactly what the patch is doing imho. Note that the
> valid_phys_addr_range(), which is using the high_memory, is the same as the
> default one in drivers/char/mem.c(#ifndef ARCH_HAS_VALID_PHYS_ADDR_RANGE). I
> just added x86 specific check for valid_mmap_phys_addr_range and moved both
> functions to arch/x86/mm/mmap.c, rather then modifying the default generic ones.
> This is how other archs(arm) are doing it.
>
> Also valid_phys_addr_range is used just in read|write_mem and
> valid_mmap_phys_addr_range is checked in mmap_mem and it calls phys_addr_valid
>
> static inline int phys_addr_valid(resource_size_t addr)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> return !(addr >> boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits);
> #else
> return 1;
> #endif
> }
>
> I for sure could overlooked something, but this seems right to me.
>
OK, this is really confusing ... which isn't a *huge* surprise (the
entire /dev/mem code has some gigantic bugs in it.)
I think I need to do more of an in-depth review. The other question is
why we don't call phys_addr_valid() everywhere.
-hpa
--
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>