linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 02/15] cxl/core: Check physical address before mapping it in devm_cxl_iomap

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 22:48:57 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 02/15] cxl/core: Check physical address before mapping it
 in devm_cxl_iomap_block()

Robert Richter wrote:
> The physical base address of a CXL range can be invalid and is then
> set to CXL_RESOURCE_NONE. Early check this case before mapping a
> memory block in devm_cxl_iomap_block().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/core/regs.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> index 39a129c57d40..f216c017a474 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> @@ -165,6 +165,9 @@ void __iomem *devm_cxl_iomap_block(struct device *dev, resource_size_t addr,
>  	void __iomem *ret_val;
>  	struct resource *res;
>  
> +	if (addr == CXL_RESOURCE_NONE)
> +		return NULL;
> +
>  	res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, addr, length, dev_name(dev));
>  	if (!res) {
>  		resource_size_t end = addr + length - 1;
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

devm_request_mem_region() succeeds for you when this happens? More
details about the failure scenario please.