linux-kernel - [RFC 07/23] mm/memblock: debug: correct displaying of upper memory boundary

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:	Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:58:50 -0400
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	<tj@...nel.org>, <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Subject: [RFC 07/23] mm/memblock: debug: correct displaying of upper memory boundary

From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>

When debugging is enabled (cmdline has "memblock=debug") the memblock
will display upper memory boundary per each allocated/freed memory range
wrongly. For example:
 memblock_reserve: [0x0000009e7e8000-0x0000009e7ed000] _memblock_early_alloc_try_nid_nopanic+0xfc/0x12c

The 0x0000009e7ed000 is displayed instead of 0x0000009e7ecfff

Hence, correct this by changing formula used to calculate upper memory
boundary to (u64)base + size - 1 instead of  (u64)base + size everywhere
in the debug messages.

Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
---
 mm/memblock.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index c67f4bb..d903138 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
 {
 	memblock_dbg("   memblock_free: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
 		     (unsigned long long)base,
-		     (unsigned long long)base + size,
+		     (unsigned long long)base + size - 1,
 		     (void *)_RET_IP_);
 
 	return __memblock_remove(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
@@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
 
 	memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
 		     (unsigned long long)base,
-		     (unsigned long long)base + size,
+		     (unsigned long long)base + size - 1,
 		     (void *)_RET_IP_);
 
 	return memblock_add_region(_rgn, base, size, MAX_NUMNODES);
@@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ void * __init memblock_early_alloc_try_nid(int nid,
 void __init __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
 {
 	memblock_dbg("%s: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
-			__func__, (u64)base, (u64)base + size,
+			__func__, (u64)base, (u64)base + size - 1,
 			(void *)_RET_IP_);
 	kmemleak_free_part(__va(base), size);
 	__memblock_remove(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
@@ -925,7 +925,7 @@ void __init __memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
 	u64 cursor, end;
 
 	memblock_dbg("%s: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
-			__func__, (u64)base, (u64)base + size,
+			__func__, (u64)base, (u64)base + size - 1,
 			(void *)_RET_IP_);
 	kmemleak_free_part(__va(base), size);
 	cursor = PFN_UP(base);
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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/