On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 5:00 PM Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 11:00:13AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.hu...@unisoc.com>
> >
> > pfn_valid can be wrong while the MSB of physical address be trimed as pfn
> > larger than the max_pfn.
>
> How the overflow of __pfn_to_phys() is related to max_pfn?
> Where is the guarantee that __pfn_to_phys(max_pfn) won't overflow?
eg, the invalid pfn value as 0x1bffc0 will pass pfn_valid if there is
a memory block while the max_pfn is 0xbffc0.
In ARM64, bellowing condition check will help to
>
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoy...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mm/init.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
> > index c2daabb..9c4d938 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
> > @@ -177,7 +177,8 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(unsigned long min,
> > unsigned long max_low,
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
> > int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
> > {
> > - return memblock_is_map_memory(__pfn_to_phys(pfn));
> > + return (pfn > max_pfn) ?
> > + false : memblock_is_map_memory(__pfn_to_phys(pfn));
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_valid);
> > #endif
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
>
