Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:51:38 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>, bp@suse.de
Cc:     thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
        Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@redhat.com>, bhe@redhat.com,
        tiwai@suse.de, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, bp@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/kexec: Correct KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END off-by-one
 error
Message-ID: <20181015045138.GA9719@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
References: <153805773703.1157.14773321497580233478.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <153805811578.1157.6948388946904655969.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20180930092110.GB6950@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20180930092741.GC6950@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180930092741.GC6950@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/30/18 at 05:27pm, Dave Young wrote:
> On 09/30/18 at 05:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> > 
> > On 09/27/18 at 09:21am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > > 
> > > The only use of KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END is as an argument to
> > > walk_system_ram_res():
> > > 
> > >   int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image)
> > >   {
> > >     ...
> > >     walk_system_ram_res(KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_START, KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END,
> > >                         image, determine_backup_region);
> > > 
> > > walk_system_ram_res() expects "start, end" arguments that are inclusive,
> > > i.e., the range to be walked includes both the start and end addresses.
> > 
> > Looking at the function comment of find_next_iomem_res,  the res->end
> > should be exclusive, am I missing something?
> 
> Oops,  you fix it in 2nd patch, I apparently miss that.
> 
> Since the fix of checking the end is in another patch, probably merge
> these two patches so that they are in one patch to avoid break bisect. 

Not sure if above comment was missed, Boris, would you mind to fold the
patch 1 and 2?

Thanks
Dave