[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130814150901.cd430738912a893d74769e1b@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:09:01 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
dave@...1.net, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
tangchen@...fujitsu.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hotplug: Verify hotplug memory range
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:17:32 -0600 Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> add_memory() and remove_memory() can only handle a memory range aligned
> with section. There are problems when an unaligned range is added and
> then deleted as follows:
>
> - add_memory() with an unaligned range succeeds, but __add_pages()
> called from add_memory() adds a whole section of pages even though
> a given memory range is less than the section size.
> - remove_memory() to the added unaligned range hits BUG_ON() in
> __remove_pages().
>
> This patch changes add_memory() and remove_memory() to check if a given
> memory range is aligned with section at the beginning. As the result,
> add_memory() fails with -EINVAL when a given range is unaligned, and
> does not add such memory range. This prevents remove_memory() to be
> called with an unaligned range as well. Note that remove_memory() has
> to use BUG_ON() since this function cannot fail.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1069,6 +1069,22 @@ out:
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int check_hotplug_memory_range(u64 start, u64 size)
> +{
> + u64 start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + u64 nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +
> + /* Memory range must be aligned with section */
> + if ((start_pfn & ~PAGE_SECTION_MASK) ||
> + (nr_pages % PAGES_PER_SECTION) || (!nr_pages)) {
> + pr_err("Section-unaligned hotplug range: start 0x%llx, size 0x%llx\n",
> + start, size);
Printing a u64 is problematic. Here you assume that u64 is implemented
as unsigned long long. But it can be implemented as unsigned long, by
architectures which use include/asm-generic/int-l64.h. Such an
architecture will generate a compile warning here, but I can't
immediately find a Kconfig combination which will make that happen.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
--
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