[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130627093917.GQ7171@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:39:17 +0200
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: Veli-Pekka Peltola <veli-pekka.peltola@...egiga.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: module_alloc: check if size is 0
Warming up an ancient thread because the discussion seems to have just
stalled at some point and I still have this patch bitrotting in patchwork.
The original thread can be found at:
http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2012-03/msg00006.html
http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2012-03/msg00028.html
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Veli-Pekka Peltola wrote:
> After commit de7d2b567d040e3b67fe7121945982f14343213d (mm/vmalloc.c: report
> more vmalloc failures) users will get a warning if vmalloc_node_range() is
> called with size 0. This happens if module's init size equals to 0. This
> patch changes ARM, MIPS and x86 module_alloc() to return NULL before calling
> vmalloc_node_range() that would also return NULL and print a warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Veli-Pekka Peltola <veli-pekka.peltola@...egiga.com>
> Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
> ---
> I found this with ARM but after checking out various implementations of
> module_alloc() I thought it would be better to fix all at once.
>
> One way to replicate the warning:
> compile kernel with CONFIG_KALLSYMS=n
> insmod a module without init, I used usb-common.ko
I didn't try to reproduce the issue but the code in question doesn't seem
to have changed so the issue should still persist.
Imho de7d2b567d040e3b67fe7121945982f14343213d [mm/vmalloc.c: report more
vmalloc failures] is overly strict in that it also reports zero-sized
allocations. I consider such allocations stupid but legitimiate and often
better preferrable over having to scatter checks for zero size all over
place. So maybe something like below patch?
Thanks,
Ralf
---
Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
mm/vmalloc.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index d365724..e58ca10 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -1679,7 +1679,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
unsigned long real_size = size;
size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
- if (!size || (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > totalram_pages)
+ if (unlikely(!size))
+ return NULL;
+
+ if ((size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > totalram_pages)
goto fail;
area = __get_vm_area_node(size, align, VM_ALLOC | VM_UNLIST,
@@ -1711,6 +1714,7 @@ fail:
warn_alloc_failed(gfp_mask, 0,
"vmalloc: allocation failure: %lu bytes\n",
real_size);
+
return NULL;
}
--
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