2008-12-25 21:33:08

by Adam Lackorzynski

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] 2.6.28, vmalloc.c, vmap_page_range

Hi,

in 2.6.28, the flush_cache_vmap in vmap_page_range() is called with the end of
the range twice. The following patch fixes this for me.

Signed-off-by: Adam Lackorzynski <[email protected]>
---
vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.28/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 00:26:37.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.28.a/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 21:45:43.118725744 +0100
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
{
pgd_t *pgd;
- unsigned long next;
+ unsigned long next, start = addr;
int err = 0;
int nr = 0;

@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
if (err)
break;
} while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
- flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
+ flush_cache_vmap(start, end);

if (unlikely(err))
return err;




Adam
--
Adam [email protected]
Lackorzynski http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~adam/


2008-12-27 00:40:00

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.28, vmalloc.c, vmap_page_range

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:02:35 +0100 Adam Lackorzynski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in 2.6.28, the flush_cache_vmap in vmap_page_range() is called with the end of
> the range twice. The following patch fixes this for me.
>

Did this bug have any observeable runtime effects? If so, what were
they?

> ---
> vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.28/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 00:26:37.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.28.a/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 21:45:43.118725744 +0100
> @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
> pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> {
> pgd_t *pgd;
> - unsigned long next;
> + unsigned long next, start = addr;
> int err = 0;
> int nr = 0;
>
> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
> if (err)
> break;
> } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
> - flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
> + flush_cache_vmap(start, end);
>
> if (unlikely(err))
> return err;

Well yeah. This is what happens when functions modify their incoming
arguments. It's a bad programming practice which leads directly to
exactly this sort of bug.

How about we fix that?


--- a/mm/vmalloc.c~vmallocc-fix-flushing-in-vmap_page_range
+++ a/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -151,11 +151,12 @@ static int vmap_pud_range(pgd_t *pgd, un
*
* Ie. pte at addr+N*PAGE_SIZE shall point to pfn corresponding to pages[N]
*/
-static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
+static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end,
pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
{
pgd_t *pgd;
unsigned long next;
+ unsigned long addr = start_addr;
int err = 0;
int nr = 0;

@@ -167,7 +168,7 @@ static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long
if (err)
break;
} while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
- flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
+ flush_cache_vmap(start_addr, end);

if (unlikely(err))
return err;
_

2008-12-27 03:36:29

by Johannes Weiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.28, vmalloc.c, vmap_page_range

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 04:39:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:02:35 +0100 Adam Lackorzynski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > in 2.6.28, the flush_cache_vmap in vmap_page_range() is called with the end of
> > the range twice. The following patch fixes this for me.
> >
>
> Did this bug have any observeable runtime effects? If so, what were
> they?
>
> > ---
> > vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.28/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 00:26:37.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.28.a/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 21:45:43.118725744 +0100
> > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
> > pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> > {
> > pgd_t *pgd;
> > - unsigned long next;
> > + unsigned long next, start = addr;
> > int err = 0;
> > int nr = 0;
> >
> > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
> > if (err)
> > break;
> > } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
> > - flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
> > + flush_cache_vmap(start, end);
> >
> > if (unlikely(err))
> > return err;
>
> Well yeah. This is what happens when functions modify their incoming
> arguments. It's a bad programming practice which leads directly to
> exactly this sort of bug.
>
> How about we fix that?
>
>
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c~vmallocc-fix-flushing-in-vmap_page_range
> +++ a/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -151,11 +151,12 @@ static int vmap_pud_range(pgd_t *pgd, un
> *
> * Ie. pte at addr+N*PAGE_SIZE shall point to pfn corresponding to pages[N]
> */
> -static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> +static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end,
> pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> {
> pgd_t *pgd;
> unsigned long next;
> + unsigned long addr = start_addr;

Ugh, start_addr is an awful name. How about start? I know it doesn't
hold the same amount of information but it's a local API, the
pgd_offset_k() should make the unit unambiguous, it goes better with
the end parameter and it's unique enough for this short function.

Hannes

2008-12-27 09:02:52

by Ingo Molnar

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.28, vmalloc.c, vmap_page_range


* Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 04:39:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:02:35 +0100 Adam Lackorzynski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > in 2.6.28, the flush_cache_vmap in vmap_page_range() is called with the end of
> > > the range twice. The following patch fixes this for me.
> > >
> >
> > Did this bug have any observeable runtime effects? If so, what were
> > they?
> >
> > > ---
> > > vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.28/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 00:26:37.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ linux-2.6.28.a/mm/vmalloc.c 2008-12-25 21:45:43.118725744 +0100
> > > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
> > > pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> > > {
> > > pgd_t *pgd;
> > > - unsigned long next;
> > > + unsigned long next, start = addr;
> > > int err = 0;
> > > int nr = 0;
> > >
> > > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
> > > if (err)
> > > break;
> > > } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
> > > - flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
> > > + flush_cache_vmap(start, end);
> > >
> > > if (unlikely(err))
> > > return err;
> >
> > Well yeah. This is what happens when functions modify their incoming
> > arguments. It's a bad programming practice which leads directly to
> > exactly this sort of bug.
> >
> > How about we fix that?
> >
> >
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c~vmallocc-fix-flushing-in-vmap_page_range
> > +++ a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -151,11 +151,12 @@ static int vmap_pud_range(pgd_t *pgd, un
> > *
> > * Ie. pte at addr+N*PAGE_SIZE shall point to pfn corresponding to pages[N]
> > */
> > -static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > +static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end,
> > pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> > {
> > pgd_t *pgd;
> > unsigned long next;
> > + unsigned long addr = start_addr;
>
> Ugh, start_addr is an awful name. How about start? I know it doesn't
> hold the same amount of information but it's a local API, the
> pgd_offset_k() should make the unit unambiguous, it goes better with the
> end parameter and it's unique enough for this short function.

i'd like to observe that there's 449 start_addr instances in the kernel
source, 17 of them in mm/*.c alone. So if it's 'ugly' (it isnt to me),
this patch is not the place to start worrying about it. If you feel
strongly about it then prepare a cleanup patch that eradicates them all,
put your justification for why it's bad into the changelog and post it to
lkml.

Anyway, happy bikeshed painting,

Ingo

2008-12-27 12:03:39

by Adam Lackorzynski

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.28, vmalloc.c, vmap_page_range


On Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 16:39:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:02:35 +0100 Adam Lackorzynski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > in 2.6.28, the flush_cache_vmap in vmap_page_range() is called with the end of
> > the range twice. The following patch fixes this for me.
> >
>
> Did this bug have any observeable runtime effects? If so, what were
> they?

Just in my own code, i.e. it doesn't have any effects to the kernel
itself.

> Well yeah. This is what happens when functions modify their incoming
> arguments. It's a bad programming practice which leads directly to
> exactly this sort of bug.
>
> How about we fix that?

fine.

> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c~vmallocc-fix-flushing-in-vmap_page_range
> +++ a/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -151,11 +151,12 @@ static int vmap_pud_range(pgd_t *pgd, un
> *
> * Ie. pte at addr+N*PAGE_SIZE shall point to pfn corresponding to pages[N]
> */
> -static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> +static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end,
> pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> {
> pgd_t *pgd;
> unsigned long next;
> + unsigned long addr = start_addr;
> int err = 0;
> int nr = 0;
>
> @@ -167,7 +168,7 @@ static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long
> if (err)
> break;
> } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
> - flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
> + flush_cache_vmap(start_addr, end);
>
> if (unlikely(err))
> return err;

Adam
--
Adam [email protected]
Lackorzynski http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~adam/

2008-12-27 14:26:25

by Johannes Weiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.28, vmalloc.c, vmap_page_range

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 10:02:21AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c~vmallocc-fix-flushing-in-vmap_page_range
> > > +++ a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > @@ -151,11 +151,12 @@ static int vmap_pud_range(pgd_t *pgd, un
> > > *
> > > * Ie. pte at addr+N*PAGE_SIZE shall point to pfn corresponding to pages[N]
> > > */
> > > -static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > > +static int vmap_page_range(unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end,
> > > pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
> > > {
> > > pgd_t *pgd;
> > > unsigned long next;
> > > + unsigned long addr = start_addr;
> >
> > Ugh, start_addr is an awful name. How about start? I know it doesn't
> > hold the same amount of information but it's a local API, the
> > pgd_offset_k() should make the unit unambiguous, it goes better with the
> > end parameter and it's unique enough for this short function.
>
> i'd like to observe that there's 449 start_addr instances in the kernel
> source, 17 of them in mm/*.c alone. So if it's 'ugly' (it isnt to me),
> this patch is not the place to start worrying about it. If you feel
> strongly about it then prepare a cleanup patch that eradicates them all,
> put your justification for why it's bad into the changelog and post it to
> lkml.

It would surely not justify such a big change.

And at least in mm/* you have them paired with `end_addr' if they
denote range start and end.

Hannes