[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc410fcb-fc31-3a7c-a8d3-26387d607478@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:04:41 +0100
From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Prateek Patel <prpatel@...dia.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: +
of-fix-kmemleak-crash-caused-by-imbalance-in-early-memory-reservation.patch
added to -mm tree
On 21/02/2019 12:13, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 2019-02-13 21:13, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
>
>> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c~of-fix-kmemleak-crash-caused-by-imbalance-in-early-memory-reservation
>> +++ a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> @@ -34,22 +34,15 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_alloc_re
>>
>> end = !end ? MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE : end;
>> align = !align ? SMP_CACHE_BYTES : align;
>> - base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(size, align, 0, end);
>> + base = memblock_find_in_range(size, align, start, end);
>
> The parameters for memblock_find_in_range() are not in the correct
> order. The proper call should be:
>
> memblock_find_in_range(start, end, size, align)
How is it possible that calling memblock_find_in_range() with incorrect parameters
"fixed" the crash? o_O
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists