On 10/15/15 at 10:20am, Borislav Petkov wrote: > From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> > > memblock_reserve() can fail but the crashkernel reservation code > doesn't check that and this can lead the user into believing that the > crashkernel region was actually reserved. Make sure we check that return > value and we exit early with a failure message in the error case. > > Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> > Cc: Dave Young <[email protected]> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> > Cc: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]> > Cc: Juergen Gross <[email protected]> > Cc: Mark Salter <[email protected]> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > Cc: WANG Chao <[email protected]> > Cc: x86-ml <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > index d4788719a1e2..3f75297d5fd0 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -531,7 +531,11 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void) > return -ENOMEM; > } > > - memblock_reserve(low_base, low_size); > + ret = memblock_reserve(low_base, low_size); > + if (ret) { > + pr_err("%s: Error reserving crashkernel low memblock.\n", > __func__); > + return ret; > + } >
Seems there's no checking for other callback to memblock_reserve in setup.c Need another cleanup? BTW, a further cleanup is reasonable to me, there's a lot of below patter: memblock_find_in_range error checking memblock_reserve error checking So a new function memblock_reserve_in_range is reasonable. Thanks Dave -- 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/
