On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:29:35AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 10:18:26PM +0000, Kees Cook wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c > > index 1f7b1e13d945..ff1559f9200c 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c > > @@ -264,6 +264,9 @@ static void walk_pmd(struct pg_state *st, pud_t *pud, > > unsigned long start) > > note_page(st, addr, 3, pmd_val(*pmd)); > > else > > walk_pte(st, pmd, addr); > > + > > + if (SECTION_SIZE < PMD_SIZE && pmd_sect(*pmd)) > > + note_page(st, addr + SECTION_SIZE, 3, pmd_val(pmd[1])); > > You can use pmd_large() here as well. > > But I think this function is broken (the "for" statement not shown > here). The pmd_t is 32-bit with classic MMU and it uses pmd++ while the > address grows by PMD_SIZE (two pmd_t entries).
Actually it's ok since PTRS_PER_PMD is 1, so it only goes through this loop once. But in your patch shouldn't you check for pmd_large(*(pmd+1))? The first pmd is already caught by the 'if' statement. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
