linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] of/fdt: Don't worry about non-memory region overlap for no-map

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]

Message-ID: <CAE-0n53NX0i3Jem+VJ3pE4HOpwYkWDfr=Vf3zd59RSE4-yr5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:24:02 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] of/fdt: Don't worry about non-memory region overlap
 for no-map

Quoting Mike Rapoport (2021-12-15 02:01:59)
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:49:37AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 11:20:11PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > @@ -482,9 +482,11 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base,
> > >     if (nomap) {
> > >             /*
> > >              * If the memory is already reserved (by another region), we
> > > -            * should not allow it to be marked nomap.
> > > +            * should not allow it to be marked nomap, but don't worry
> > > +            * if the region isn't memory as it won't be mapped.
> > >              */
> > > -           if (memblock_is_region_reserved(base, size))
> > > +           if (memblock_overlaps_region(&memblock.memory, base, size) &&
> > > +               memblock_is_region_reserved(base, size))
>
> One more small thing. Maybe add pr_warn() here?
>

There's already a print in __reserved_mem_reserve_reg() when this
function returns an error so it doesn't seem very useful to add another
print.