linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: Fix crash kenrel data type bug

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: <CACRpkda+ZqXXbvXBotNbpK39_ghtY77AVi_bGLYMn2r_r-X6-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:14:40 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk, bhe@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, 
	dyoung@...hat.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, 
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, arnd@...db.de, afd@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, eric.devolder@...cle.com, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, deller@....de, javierm@...hat.com, 
	robh@...nel.org, thunder.leizhen@...wei.com, austindh.kim@...il.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: Fix crash kenrel data type bug

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 3:29 PM Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com> wrote:

> On QEMU vexpress-a9 with 1GB memory, the crash kernel "crashkernel=4G"
> is ok as below:
>         Reserving 4096MB of memory at 2432MB for crashkernel (System RAM: 1024MB)
>
> The above info is confusing, because the System memory is as below:
>         # cat /proc/iomem | grep Sys
>         60000000-9fffffff : System RAM
>
> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
> long" data type which is 8 bytes but used with "phys_addr_t" which is
> 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().

Is that the whole explanation?

>         /* invalid value specified or crashkernel=0 */
> +       crash_size = (phys_addr_t)crash_size;
>         if (ret || !crash_size)
>                 return;

How did crash_size get assigned before you added this oneliner?

Yours,
Linus Walleij