Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132085-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:15:49 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>, David Hildenbrand
 <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/cma: drop incorrect alignment check in
 cma_init_reserved_mem
Message-Id: <20240404131549.27a454072f7e96530dce2d62@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240404162515.527802-1-fvdl@google.com>
References: <20240404162515.527802-1-fvdl@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu,  4 Apr 2024 16:25:14 +0000 Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com> wrote:

> cma_init_reserved_mem uses IS_ALIGNED to check if the size
> represented by one bit in the cma allocation bitmask is
> aligned with CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES (pageblock size).
> 
> However, this is too strict, as this will fail if
> order_per_bit > pageblock_order, which is a valid configuration.
> 
> We could check IS_ALIGNED both ways, but since both numbers are
> powers of two, no check is needed at all.

What are the userspace visible effects of this bug?