Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] ppc64/kexec_file: avoid stomping memory used by
 special regions
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Pingfan Liu <piliu@redhat.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
        Kexec-ml <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
        Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com>
 <159466088775.24747.1248185448154277951.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com>
 <87365t8pse.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Message-ID: <0582476e-415e-3f60-2bb2-6199d0340156@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:39:14 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87365t8pse.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 15/07/20 8:09 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 

<snip>
 
>> +/**
>> + * __locate_mem_hole_top_down - Looks top down for a large enough memory hole
>> + *                              in the memory regions between buf_min & buf_max
>> + *                              for the buffer. If found, sets kbuf->mem.
>> + * @kbuf:                       Buffer contents and memory parameters.
>> + * @buf_min:                    Minimum address for the buffer.
>> + * @buf_max:                    Maximum address for the buffer.
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 on success, negative errno on error.
>> + */
>> +static int __locate_mem_hole_top_down(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
>> +				      u64 buf_min, u64 buf_max)
>> +{
>> +	int ret = -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
>> +	phys_addr_t start, end;
>> +	u64 i;
>> +
>> +	for_each_mem_range_rev(i, &memblock.memory, NULL, NUMA_NO_NODE,
>> +			       MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) {
>> +		if (start > buf_max)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		/* Memory hole not found */
>> +		if (end < buf_min)
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		/* Adjust memory region based on the given range */
>> +		if (start < buf_min)
>> +			start = buf_min;
>> +		if (end > buf_max)
>> +			end = buf_max;
>> +
>> +		start = ALIGN(start, kbuf->buf_align);
>> +		if (start < end && (end - start + 1) >= kbuf->memsz) {
> 
> This is why I dislike using start and end to express address ranges:
> 
> While struct resource seems to use the [address, end] convention, my

struct crash_mem also uses [address, end] convention.
This off-by-one error did not cause any issues as the hole start and size we try to find
are at least page aligned.

Nonetheless, I think fixing 'end' early in the loop with "end -= 1" would ensure
correctness while continuing to use the same convention for structs crash_mem & resource.

Thanks
Hari