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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ZB6O5awTbmcmqFI5@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Mar 2023 09:04:21 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     纪宏宾 <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 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.