From: will.deacon@arm•com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] Fix for the arm64 kern_addr_valid() function
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:00:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140429150048.GA28402@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140429142542.GI17007@arm.com>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 08:51:44AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 06:53:24PM +0100, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > > Fix for the arm64 kern_addr_valid() function to recognize
> > > virtual addresses in the kernel logical memory map. The
> > > function fails as written because it does not check whether
> > > the addresses in that region are mapped at the pmd level to
> > > 2MB or 512MB pages, continues the page table walk to the
> > > pte level, and issues a garbage value to pfn_valid().
> > >
> > > Tested on 4K-page and 64K-page kernels.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Anderson <anderson@redhat•com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > index 6b7e895..0a472c4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > @@ -374,6 +374,9 @@ int kern_addr_valid(unsigned long addr)
> > > if (pmd_none(*pmd))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > + if (pmd_sect(*pmd))
> > > + return pfn_valid(pmd_pfn(*pmd));
> > > +
> > > pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
> > > if (pte_none(*pte))
> > > return 0;
> >
> > Whilst this patch looks fine to me, I wonder whether walking the page tables
> > is really necessary for this function? The only user is fs/proc/kcore.c,
> > which basically wants to know if a lowmem address is actually backed by
> > physical memory. Our current implementation of kern_addr_valid will return
> > true even for MMIO mappings,
>
> There is still a pfn_valid() check, so MMIO mappings wouldn't return
> true.
Ah yes, I missed that.
> > whilst I think we could actually just do
> > something like:
> >
> >
> > if ((((long)addr) >> VA_BITS) != -1UL)
> > return 0;
> >
> > return pfn_valid(__pa(addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
>
> __pa(addr) isn't valid for vmalloc/ioremap addresses (which would pass
> the VA_BITS test above).
Sure, but the only caller of this function already checks the input address
with is_vmalloc_or_module_addr, so that's not an issue.
> I would go with Dave's original patch for now. We've discussing change
> the memory map a bit for the kernel at some point in the future with
> PHYS_OFFSET always 0 and the kernel text/data mapped at a different
> address from PAGE_OFFSET (similar to x86_64). If we get there, this
> function would work unmodified.
Yeah, I'm fine with the patch, it just seems like we're doing a lot of
needless work as it stands.
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-29 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-15 17:53 [PATCH] Fix for the arm64 kern_addr_valid() function Dave Anderson
2014-04-16 7:51 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-16 13:35 ` Dave Anderson
2014-04-29 14:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-04-29 14:34 ` Don Dutile
2014-04-29 15:00 ` Will Deacon [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140429150048.GA28402@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox