Le 28/03/2022 à 12:37, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Kefeng Wang [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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