On 15/08/2019 12:24, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
On 15/08/2019 12:20, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Stabellini writes:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
@@ -162,6 +156,10 @@ static void __init process_memory_node(const void
*fdt, int node,
bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
}
+
+ if ( bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
+ return -ENOSPC;
Are you sure that this logic is correct?
For example, if NR_MEM_BANKS is 1, and we have exactly one memory node
in device tree, this function will fail. But it should not. I think you
want this condition: bootinfo.mem.nr_banks > NR_MEM_BANKS
You are right, if NR_MEM_BANKS is 1 and we have 1 memory node in device
tree the code would return an error while actually it is normal.
I think the right check would be:
if ( i < banks && bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
return -ENOSPC;
Actually, this does not cover all corner cases. Here is the resulting
code:
150 for ( i = 0; i < banks && bootinfo.mem.nr_banks < NR_MEM_BANKS; i++ )
151 {
152 device_tree_get_reg(&cell, address_cells, size_cells, &start,
&size);
153 if ( !size )
154 continue;
155 bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].start = start;
156 bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
157 bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
158 }
159
160 if ( i < banks && bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
161 return -ENOSPC;
Lines 153-154 cause the issue.
Imagine that NR_MEM_BANKS = 1 and we have two memory nodes in device
tree with. Nodes have sizes 0 and 1024. Your code will work as
intended. At the end of loop we will have banks = 2, i = 2 and
bootinfo.mem.nr_banks = 1.
But if we switch order of memory nodes, so first one will be with size
1024 and second one with size 0, your code will return -ENOSPC, because
we'll have banks = 2, i = 1, bootinfo.mem.nr_banks = 1.
I think, right solution will be to scan all nodes to count nodes
with size > 0. And then - either return an error or do second loop to
fill bootinfo.mem.bank[].
To be honest, a memory with size 0 is an error in the DT provided. So I would
not care too much if Xen is not working as intended.
If we want to fix this, then we should bail out as we do for missing 'regs' and
invalid 'address-cells'/'size-cells'.
I send this too early. I forgot to mention that I would not be happy with
parsing the Device-Tree twice just for benefits of wrong DT. If a DT is wrong
then we should treat as such and shout at the user.
Repairing any wrong inputs should be done on best efforts.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
