linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:05:00 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr_t where
 appropriate

On Tue 03-07-18 20:05:06, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Most functions in memblock already use phys_addr_t to represent a physical
> address with __memblock_free_late() being an exception.
> 
> This patch replaces u64 with phys_addr_t in __memblock_free_late() and
> switches several format strings from %llx to %pa to avoid casting from
> phys_addr_t to u64.
> 
> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  mm/memblock.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 03d48d8..20ad8e9 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type,
>  {
>  	struct memblock_region *new_array, *old_array;
>  	phys_addr_t old_alloc_size, new_alloc_size;
> -	phys_addr_t old_size, new_size, addr;
> +	phys_addr_t old_size, new_size, addr, new_end;
>  	int use_slab = slab_is_available();
>  	int *in_slab;
>  
> @@ -391,9 +391,9 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type,
>  		return -1;
>  	}
>  
> -	memblock_dbg("memblock: %s is doubled to %ld at [%#010llx-%#010llx]",
> -			type->name, type->max * 2, (u64)addr,
> -			(u64)addr + new_size - 1);
> +	new_end = addr + new_size - 1;
> +	memblock_dbg("memblock: %s is doubled to %ld at [%pa-%pa]",
> +			type->name, type->max * 2, &addr, &new_end);

I didn't get to check this carefully but this surely looks suspicious. I
am pretty sure you wanted to print the value here rather than address of
the local variable, right?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs