Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757987Ab3DXLhn (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:37:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52543 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757659Ab3DXLhH (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:37:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:36:52 +0200 From: Frantisek Hrbata To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, kamaleshb@in.ibm.com, hechjie@cn.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add phys addr validity check for /dev/mem mmap Message-ID: <20130424113652.GC3358@dhcp-26-164.brq.redhat.com> Reply-To: Frantisek Hrbata References: <1364905733-23937-1-git-send-email-fhrbata@redhat.com> <515B2802.1050405@zytor.com> <20130402191012.GC3314@dhcp-26-164.brq.redhat.com> <515B3F98.5020101@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <515B3F98.5020101@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1895 Lines: 54 On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:29:12PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/02/2013 12:10 PM, Frantisek Hrbata wrote: > > > > Hi, this is exactly what the patch is doing imho. Note that the > > valid_phys_addr_range(), which is using the high_memory, is the same as the > > default one in drivers/char/mem.c(#ifndef ARCH_HAS_VALID_PHYS_ADDR_RANGE). I > > just added x86 specific check for valid_mmap_phys_addr_range and moved both > > functions to arch/x86/mm/mmap.c, rather then modifying the default generic ones. > > This is how other archs(arm) are doing it. > > > > Also valid_phys_addr_range is used just in read|write_mem and > > valid_mmap_phys_addr_range is checked in mmap_mem and it calls phys_addr_valid > > > > static inline int phys_addr_valid(resource_size_t addr) > > { > > #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT > > return !(addr >> boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits); > > #else > > return 1; > > #endif > > } > > > > I for sure could overlooked something, but this seems right to me. > > > > OK, this is really confusing ... which isn't a *huge* surprise (the > entire /dev/mem code has some gigantic bugs in it.) > > I think I need to do more of an in-depth review. The other question is > why we don't call phys_addr_valid() everywhere. > > -hpa Hi Peter, please, have you had a chance to look at this? Many thanks > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Frantisek Hrbata -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/