linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock.c: fix index adjustment error in __next_mem_range

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160725185218.GG19588@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:52:18 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	zijun_hu@....com
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kuleshovmail@...il.com,
	ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, tangchen@...fujitsu.com,
	weiyang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dev@...l1n.net,
	david@...son.dropbear.id.au, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock.c: fix index adjustment error in
 __next_mem_range_rev()

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 07:34:12AM +0000, zijun_hu@....com wrote:
> Hi All,
>          There is a bug in mm/memblock.c
>          Could you review and phase-in this patch?
>          Thanks a lot
> 
> From 3abf1822d30f77f126bd7a3c09bb243d9c17a029 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:06:57 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/memblock.c: fix index adjustment error in
> __next_mem_range_rev()
> 
> fix region index adjustment error when parameter type_b of
> __next_mem_range_rev() == NULL
> 
> Signed-off-by: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index ac12489..b14973e 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ void __init_memblock __next_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx, int nid, ulong flags,
>                                  *out_end = m_end;
>                         if (out_nid)
>                                  *out_nid = m_nid;
> -                         idx_a++;
> +                        idx_a--;

Looks good to me.  Do you happen to have a test case for this bug?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun