On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:46:35AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 09:05 AM, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> > +
> > +int valid_phys_addr_range(phys_addr_t addr, size_t count)
> > +{
> > + return addr + count <= __pa(high_memory);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int valid_mmap_phys_addr_range(unsigned long pfn, size_t count)
> > +{
> > + resource_size_t addr = (pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) + count;
> > + return phys_addr_valid(addr);
> > +}
> >
>
> The latter has overflow problems.
Could you please specify what overflow problems do you mean?
>
> The former I realize matches the current /dev/mem, but it is still just
> plain wrong in multiple ways.
I guess that you are talking about /dev/mem implementation generelly, because
this patch is exactly the same as the first one. All I'm trying to do here is to
fix this simple problem, which was reported by a customer, using IMHO the least
invasive way. Anyway is there any description what is wrong with /dev/mem
implementation? Maybe I can try to take a look.
Many thanks
>
> -hpa
>
--
Frantisek Hrbata
--
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>