[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120426150159.GA27486@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:01:59 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Teoh <htmldeveloper@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [BUG]memblock: fix overflow of array index
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:50:58AM +0800, Peter Teoh wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. Just an educational question: is it possible
> to set one-byte per memblock? And what is the minimum memblock
> size?
1 byte.
> Even if 2G memblock is a huge number, it still seemed like a bug to me
> that there is no check on the maximum number (which is 2G) of this
> variable (assuming signed int). Software can always purposely push
> that number up and the system can panic?
Yeah, if somebody messes the BIOS / firmware to oblivion. I don't
really care at that point tho. memblock is a boot time memory
allocator and it assumes BIOS / firmware isn't completely crazy. It
uses contiguous tables to describe all the blocks, walks them
one-by-one for allocation and even compacts them.
Well before memblock fails from any of the above, the machine would be
failing miserably in firmware / BIOS.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists