[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230517152028.86b6d2d5afa4541b4269131b@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 15:20:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Michael Ellerman' <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"glider@...gle.com" <glider@...gle.com>,
"elver@...gle.com" <elver@...gle.com>,
"zhangpeng.00@...edance.com" <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kfence: Fix false positives on big endian
On Fri, 5 May 2023 16:02:17 +0000 David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> From: Michael Ellerman
> > Sent: 05 May 2023 04:51
> >
> > Since commit 1ba3cbf3ec3b ("mm: kfence: improve the performance of
> > __kfence_alloc() and __kfence_free()"), kfence reports failures in
> > random places at boot on big endian machines.
> >
> > The problem is that the new KFENCE_CANARY_PATTERN_U64 encodes the
> > address of each byte in its value, so it needs to be byte swapped on big
> > endian machines.
> >
> > The compiler is smart enough to do the le64_to_cpu() at compile time, so
> > there is no runtime overhead.
> >
> > Fixes: 1ba3cbf3ec3b ("mm: kfence: improve the performance of __kfence_alloc() and __kfence_free()")
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> > ---
> > mm/kfence/kfence.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/kfence/kfence.h b/mm/kfence/kfence.h
> > index 2aafc46a4aaf..392fb273e7bd 100644
> > --- a/mm/kfence/kfence.h
> > +++ b/mm/kfence/kfence.h
> > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
> > * canary of every 8 bytes is the same. 64-bit memory can be filled and checked
> > * at a time instead of byte by byte to improve performance.
> > */
> > -#define KFENCE_CANARY_PATTERN_U64 ((u64)0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ^ (u64)(0x0706050403020100))
> > +#define KFENCE_CANARY_PATTERN_U64 ((u64)0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ^ (u64)(le64_to_cpu(0x0706050403020100)))
>
> What at the (u64) casts for?
> The constants should probably have a ul (or ull) suffix.
>
I tried that, didn't fix the sparse warnings described at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/202305132244.DwzBUcUd-lkp@intel.com.
Michael, have you looked into this?
I'll merge it upstream - I guess we can live with the warnings for a while.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists