On 10/02/2013 11:31 AM, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> 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?
Consider if pfn + count overflows and wraps around, or if (pfn <<
PAGE_SHIFT) pushes bits out to the left.
>> 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.
>
The bottom line is that read/write to /dev/mem should be able to access
the same memory that we can mmap(). Having two different tests is
ridiculous.
-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>