lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: x86: potential ioremap() issues
>> - When ioremap_page_range() fails, remove_vm_area() is used rather
>> than vunmap() - I think this will cause a 'struct vm_struct' leak.
>
>indeed, good catch - could you check whether the patch below fixes this?

Yes, it certainly does. You using it rather than vunmap() makes me notice
other inconsistencies (but harmless in nature): The ioremap_change_attr()
failure case should use the same function, and iounmap() could be
simplified using it, too.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

>> - While ioremap() continues to happily map RAM pages (with a bogus
>> [see below] WARN_ON_ONCE()), cacheability of the memory is not
>> being restored in iounmap().
>
>correct - these are never supposed to be 'true', generally allocated RAM
>pages - or like we do with AGP where the pages are exclusively owned we
>restore their cacheability explicitly.

Never supposed to be doesn't mean they really aren't. I think as long as
one permits it, the other should undo its effects. Further more, it would
seem to me that you could easily ioremap() a hot-pluggable (but
unpopulated) memory range, and get into inconsistencies once that
range gets actually populated. Or am I not seeing a safeguard
preventing this?

>> - The check for RAM pages (except for the WARN_ON_ONCE())
>> continues to be applied only to lowmem pages.
>
>yes, the biggest constraint from ioremap comes when it applies to pages
>that are mapped by the kernel. But i guess we could extend this to all
>things RAM ... the second patch below does this. What do you think? I've
>queued this up in x86.git#testing as well.

Yes, that's exactly what I would have thought it should look like.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

>> - The WARN_ON_ONCE() itself is applied to the pfn after the
>> preceding loop finished, i.e. to a pfn that doesn't actually participate
>> in the operation. Shouldn't it be moved inside the loop?
>
>i removed the WARN_ON_ONCE() from x86.git a few days ago, it's lined up
>for the next push.

Great, thanks!

Jan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-28 15:33    [W:0.082 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site