Re: [PATCH] x86/setup: correct off-by-1 in module mapping

2025-03-19 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 19/03/2025 12:15 pm, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:21:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> If a module's length is an exact multiple of PAGE_SIZE, the 2nd argument >> passed to set_pdx_range() would be one larger than intended. Use >> PFN_{UP,DOWN}() there instead. >> >> Fixes

Re: [PATCH] x86/setup: correct off-by-1 in module mapping

2025-03-19 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:21:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > If a module's length is an exact multiple of PAGE_SIZE, the 2nd argument > passed to set_pdx_range() would be one larger than intended. Use > PFN_{UP,DOWN}() there instead. > > Fixes: cd7cc5320bb2 ("x86/boot: add start and size fields

Re: [PATCH] x86/setup: correct off-by-1 in module mapping

2025-03-19 Thread Jan Beulich
On 19.03.2025 13:15, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:21:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> If a module's length is an exact multiple of PAGE_SIZE, the 2nd argument >> passed to set_pdx_range() would be one larger than intended. Use >> PFN_{UP,DOWN}() there instead. >> >> Fixes: c

Re: [PATCH] x86/setup: correct off-by-1 in module mapping

2025-03-19 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:21:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > If a module's length is an exact multiple of PAGE_SIZE, the 2nd argument > passed to set_pdx_range() would be one larger than intended. Use > PFN_{UP,DOWN}() there instead. > > Fixes: cd7cc5320bb2 ("x86/boot: add start and size fields