[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4af66721ea53ce7df2d45a567d17a30575672b2.camel@d-silva.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:27:30 +1000
From: "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@...ilva.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Trigger bug on if a section is not found in
__section_nr
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@...ilva.org>
> >
> > If a memory section comes in where the physical address is greater
> > than
> > that which is managed by the kernel, this function would not
> > trigger the
> > bug and instead return a bogus section number.
> >
> > This patch tracks whether the section was actually found, and
> > triggers the
> > bug if not.
>
> Why do we want/need that? In other words the changelog should contina
> WHY and WHAT. This one contains only the later one.
>
Thanks, I'll update the comment.
During driver development, I tried adding peristent memory at a memory
address that exceeded the maximum permissable address for the platform.
This caused __section_nr to silently return bogus section numbers,
rather than complaining.
--
Alastair D'Silva mob: 0423 762 819
skype: alastair_dsilva
Twitter: @EvilDeece
blog: http://alastair.d-silva.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists