[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141208180824.GC22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 18:08:27 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHES] iov_iter.c rewrite
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 05:58:05PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> It looks like the second VIRTUAL_BUG_ON() in __phys_addr(), most likely
> from __pa(), from virt_to_page(), from
> unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)v.iov_base, end;
> size_t len = v.iov_len + (*start = addr & (PAGE_SIZE - 1));
>
> if (len > maxpages * PAGE_SIZE)
> len = maxpages * PAGE_SIZE;
> addr &= ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> for (end = addr + len; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE)
> get_page(*pages++ = virt_to_page(addr));
> return len - *start;
> in iov_iter_get_pages(). And that's ITER_KVEC case there... Further
> call chain looks like dio_refill_pages(), from dio_get_page(), from
> do_direct_io(), eventually from kernel_read() and finit_module(),
> Presumably called on O_DIRECT descriptor...
FWIW, virt_to_page() is probably not OK to call on an address in the
middle of vmalloc'ed area, is it? Would
for (end = addr + len; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
ACCESS_ONCE(*(char *)addr);
get_page(*pages++ = virt_to_page(addr));
}
be a safe replacement for the loop in the above?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists