[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181015045138.GA9719@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:51:38 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, bp@...e.de
Cc: thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com,
Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>, bhe@...hat.com,
tiwai@...e.de, x86@...nel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com, hpa@...or.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, bp@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/kexec: Correct KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END off-by-one
error
On 09/30/18 at 05:27pm, Dave Young wrote:
> On 09/30/18 at 05:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > On 09/27/18 at 09:21am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > The only use of KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END is as an argument to
> > > walk_system_ram_res():
> > >
> > > int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > walk_system_ram_res(KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_START, KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END,
> > > image, determine_backup_region);
> > >
> > > walk_system_ram_res() expects "start, end" arguments that are inclusive,
> > > i.e., the range to be walked includes both the start and end addresses.
> >
> > Looking at the function comment of find_next_iomem_res, the res->end
> > should be exclusive, am I missing something?
>
> Oops, you fix it in 2nd patch, I apparently miss that.
>
> Since the fix of checking the end is in another patch, probably merge
> these two patches so that they are in one patch to avoid break bisect.
Not sure if above comment was missed, Boris, would you mind to fold the
patch 1 and 2?
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists