> Wrong. We do call __pa() on vmalloc ranges (which is a known
> uncleanliness that we intend to fix),
AFAIK nobody does actually currently. Although I expect sooner
or later someone will try since __ioremap() lost its pgprot argument
that made it so powerful. Best would be probably to stick
in some bugs just to catch that.
> but contrary to your claim the
> result is not "random result". On 64-bit it's guaranteed to have a value
> above ~66 TB on 64-bit and hence fails all the filters later on so it
> has zero practical relevance at the moment.
Note that 64bit EFI passes in a fixmap address (they just call
it efi_ioremap). Fixmaps are in the kernel mapping which __pa() handles
and then this gives a low number likely somewhere in memory
and might well trigger.
> On 32-bit we transform it
> down to somewhere around 1GB - where we check it against the BIOS range
> filters - which again cannot trigger. But I do agree that it's unclean
> and needs fixing up.
Are you sure about this for all possible __PAGE_OFFSET values? e.g. consider
1:3 split. Also there is always relocated kernels where kernels might be loaded
quite high.
>
> static int change_page_attr_addr(struct cpa_data *cpa)
> ...
> unsigned long phys_addr = __pa(address);
>
> which for vmalloc area virtual addresses will indeed yield some really
> high (and invalid) physical address. That address will never trigger
> this check:
>
> if (within(address, HIGH_MAP_START, HIGH_MAP_END))
> address = (unsigned long) __va(phys_addr);
That doesn't check phys_addr at all?
> or this check:
>
> if (within(phys_addr, 0, KERNEL_TEXT_SIZE)) {
>
> so we'll never actuall _use_ that phys_addr.
> and it's on our clean-up
> list. But your patch is not a good cleanup because it just hides the
> underlying weakness.
I never claimed it was a cleanup. It's a fix and a optimization
(don't do unnecessary coherency between direct mapping and other
mappings for clearing X -- this means some innocent pages in the
direct mapping won't get split)
Anyways even if you don't want to fix this clear bug I would ask
to still consider the optimization independently.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
