On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:47:39 +0800
Li Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Martin Schwidefsky
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:36:10 +0800
> > Li Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The code in mmap.c checks for the per-task limit, 31-bit vs 64-bit.
> > pgalloc.c checks for the maximum allowed address and does not care
> > about the task.
> >
> >> Fixes: 8ab867cb0806 (s390/mm: fix BUG_ON in crst_table_upgrade)
> >> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <[email protected]>
> >
> > I don't think this patch fixes anything.
>
> At least there is a logic error i think, after apply the patch
> "s390/mm: fix BUG_ON in crst_table_upgrade",
> it makes no sense to compare "if (end >= TASK_SIZE_MAX) return
> -ENOMEM" in crst_table_upgrade() function.
>
> isn't it?
Be careful with TASK_SIZE vs. TASK_SIZE_MAX. They return different
values for 31-bit compat tasks.
If the addr parameter is correctly aligned then the if condition in
crst_table_upgrade is superfluous as TASK_SIZE_MAX is now -PAGE_SIZE
with the introduction of 5 level page tables. It is important for older
kernels with only 4 level page tables with a TASK_SIZE_MAX of 2**53.
On the other hand if addr is ever a value between -PAGE_SIZE and -1
we would end up with an endless loop. That makes the if condition a
safe-guard and I would like to keep it.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
From 1582313030630675417@xxx Thu Oct 26 09:48:17 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582304768297398323
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums