Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758147Ab2FOWFP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:05:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:33393 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757954Ab2FOWFN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:05:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1339794567-17784-1-git-send-email-greg.pearson@hp.com> References: <1339794567-17784-1-git-send-email-greg.pearson@hp.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:05:12 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FwtBjzM3NqSsRMlAXRq7c5zSu00 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: fix overlapping allocation when doubling reserved array From: Yinghai Lu To: Greg Pearson Cc: tj@kernel.org, hpa@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2819 Lines: 61 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Greg Pearson wrote: > The __alloc_memory_core_early() routine will ask memblock for a range > of memory then try to reserve it. If the reserved region array lacks > space for the new range, memblock_double_array() is called to allocate > more space for the array. If memblock is used to allocate memory for > the new array it can end up using a range that overlaps with the range > originally allocated in __alloc_memory_core_early(), leading to possible > data corruption. > > With this patch memblock_double_array() now calls memblock_find_in_range() > with a narrowed candidate range so any memory allocated will not overlap > with the original range that was being reserved. The range is narrowed by > passing in the starting address of the previously allocated range as the > end of the candidate range. Since memblock_find_in_range_node() looks for > a free range by walking the free memory list in reverse order (highest > memory address to lowest address) this change should not unnecessarily > exclude chunks of memory that could otherwise be used to satisfy the > request. old early_res version have exclude_start/exclude_end. > > Signed-off-by: Greg Pearson > --- > ?mm/memblock.c | ? 11 +++++++---- > ?1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index 952123e..599519c 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -184,7 +184,8 @@ static void __init_memblock memblock_remove_region(struct memblock_type *type, u > ? ? ? ?} > ?} > > -static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type) > +static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type, > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? phys_addr_t skip_base) could pass phys_addr_t exclude_base, phys_addr_t execlude_end > ?{ > ? ? ? ?struct memblock_region *new_array, *old_array; > ? ? ? ?phys_addr_t old_size, new_size, addr; > @@ -222,7 +223,8 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?new_array = kmalloc(new_size, GFP_KERNEL); > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?addr = new_array ? __pa(new_array) : 0; > ? ? ? ?} else { > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? addr = memblock_find_in_range(0, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, new_size, sizeof(phys_addr_t)); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? addr = memblock_find_in_range(0, skip_base, > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? new_size, sizeof(phys_addr_t)); could try to search [exclude_end, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE) at first. then try [0, execlude_start). Yinghai -- 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/