On 10/25/2019 02:22 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 25/10/2019 à 10:24, Anshuman Khandual a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/2019 12:41 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 25/10/2019 à 07:52, Qian Cai a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Anshuman Khandual <Anshuman.Khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing specific. But just tested this with x86 defconfig with relevant configs
>>>>> which are required for this test. Not sure if it involved W=1.
>>>>
>>>> No, it will not. It needs to run like,
>>>>
>>>> make W=1 -j 64 2>/tmp/warns
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are we talking about this peace of code ?
>>>
>>> +static unsigned long __init get_random_vaddr(void)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long random_vaddr, random_pages, total_user_pages;
>>> +
>>> + total_user_pages = (TASK_SIZE - FIRST_USER_ADDRESS) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>> +
>>> + random_pages = get_random_long() % total_user_pages;
>>> + random_vaddr = FIRST_USER_ADDRESS + random_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
>>> +
>>> + WARN_ON((random_vaddr > TASK_SIZE) ||
>>> + (random_vaddr < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS));
>>> + return random_vaddr;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>
>>> ramdom_vaddr is unsigned,
>>> random_pages is unsigned and lower than total_user_pages
>>>
>>> So the max value random_vaddr can get is FIRST_USER_ADDRESS + ((TASK_SIZE - FIRST_USER_ADDRESS - 1) / PAGE_SIZE) * PAGE_SIZE = TASK_SIZE - 1
>>> And the min value random_vaddr can get is FIRST_USER_ADDRESS (that's when random_pages = 0)
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>>>
>>> So the WARN_ON() is just unneeded, isn't it ?
>>
>> It is just a sanity check on possible vaddr values before it's corresponding
>> page table mappings could be created. If it's worth to drop this in favor of
>> avoiding these unwanted warning messages on x86, will go ahead with it as it
>> is not super important.
>>
>
> But you are checking what ? That the compiler does calculation correctly or what ?
IIRC, probably this was for later if and when the vaddr calculation becomes
dependent on other factors rather than this simple arithmetic involving start
and end of process address space on a platform.
> As mentionned just above, based on the calculation done, what you are testing cannot happen, so I'm having a hard time understanding what kind of sanity check it can be.
You are right.
>
> Can you give an exemple of a situation which could trigger the warning ?
I was mistaken. We dont need those checks for now, hence will drop them next time.
>
> Christophe
>
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
