linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZB6XvqqnGa446s5o@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Mar 2023 09:42:06 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Hongbin Ji <jihongbin999@...il.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle
 overflowing range @base + @size

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 02:25:58PM +0800, Hongbin Ji wrote:
> It is just to correct the information displayed by the debugging.
> The wrong information display is also a problem, but it is not a
> problem that affects the function

Please don't top post.

Wrong debugging info will be the least of the problems if memblock_add() or
membloc_remove() are called with wrong parameters.

Please work on cleanups based on code inspection outside of mm/
 
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> 于2023年3月25日周六 14:04写道：
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 04:15:13PM +0800, 纪宏宾 wrote:
> > > Allow memblock users to specify range where @base + @size overflows,
> > > This will cause the address range information in the debug output to
> > > be displayed incorrectly.
> >
> > Is there a real problem you are trying to solve?
> >
> > > For example, calling memblock_remove(1ULL << PHYS_MASK_SHIFT,
> > > ULLONG_MAX) in arch/arm64/mm/init.c,
> > > would be displayed as:
> > > [ 0.000000] memblock_remove: [0x0001000000000000-0x0000fffffffffffe]
> > > arm64_memblock_init+0x24/0x270
> > > but we expect the output:
> > > [ 0.000000] memblock_remove: [0x0001000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff]
> > > arm64_memblock_init+0x24/0x270
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hongbin Ji <jhb_ee@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > > index 25fd0626a9e7..567b99e4355d 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > > @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static int __init_memblock
> > > memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type,
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
> > >         int nid, enum memblock_flags flags)
> > >  {
> > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] nid=%d flags=%x %pS\n", __func__,
> > >        &base, &end, nid, flags, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > > @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t
> > > base, phys_addr_t size,
> > >   */
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
> > >        &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > > @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static int __init_memblock
> > > memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type,
> > >
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
> > >        &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > > @@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ void __init_memblock memblock_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
> > >   */
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
> > >        &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > > @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t
> > > base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
> > >        &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > > @@ -876,7 +876,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t
> > > base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_physmem_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
> > >        &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > > @@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ void __init memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base,
> > > phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > >   phys_addr_t cursor, end;
> > >
> > > - end = base + size - 1;
> > > + end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1;
> > >   memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n",
> > >        __func__, &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > >   kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size);
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Mike.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.