Le 28/03/2022 à 12:37, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.w...@huawei.com> writes:
>> Hi maintainers，
>>
>> I saw the patches has been reviewed[1], could they be merged?
>
> Maybe I'm just misreading the change log, but it seems wrong that we
> need to add extra checks. pfn_valid() shouldn't return true for vmalloc
> addresses in the first place, shouldn't we fix that instead? Who knows
> what else that might be broken because of that.
>
pfn_valid() doesn't take an address but a PFN
If you have 1Gbyte of memory you have 256k PFNs.
In a generic config the kernel will map 768 Mbytes of mémory (From
0xc0000000 to 0xe0000000) and will use 0xf0000000-0xffffffff for
everything else including vmalloc.
If you take a page above that 768 Mbytes limit, and tries to linarly
convert it's PFN to a va, you'll hip vmalloc space. Anyway that PFN is
valid.
So the check really needs to be done in virt_addr_valid().
There is another thing however that would be worth fixing (in another
patch): that's the virt_to_pfn() in PPC64:
#define virt_to_pfn(kaddr) (__pa(kaddr) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
#define __pa(x) \
({ \
VIRTUAL_BUG_ON((unsigned long)(x) < PAGE_OFFSET); \
(unsigned long)(x) & 0x0fffffffffffffffUL; \
})
So 0xc000000000000000 and 0xd000000000000000 have the same PFN. That's
wrong.
Christophe
