Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:11:27 +0300 | From | Nick Kossifidis <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] RISC-V: Improve init_resources |
| |
Στις 2021-04-06 11:22, Geert Uytterhoeven έγραψε: > Hi Nick, > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:11 AM Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr> > wrote: >> Hello Geert, >> Στις 2021-04-06 10:19, Geert Uytterhoeven έγραψε: >> > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 10:57 AM Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr> >> > wrote: >> >> * Kernel region is always present and we know where it is, no >> >> need to look for it inside the loop, just ignore it like the >> >> rest of the reserved regions within system's memory. >> >> >> >> * Don't call memblock_free inside the loop, if called it'll split >> >> the region of pre-allocated resources in two parts, messing things >> >> up, just re-use the previous pre-allocated resource and free any >> >> unused resources after both loops finish. >> >> >> >> * memblock_alloc may add a region when called, so increase the >> >> number of pre-allocated regions by one to be on the safe side >> >> (reported and patched by Geert Uytterhoeven) >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> >> > >> > Where does this SoB come from? >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr> >> > >> >> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c >> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c >> > >> >> @@ -129,53 +139,42 @@ static void __init init_resources(void) >> >> struct resource *res = NULL; >> >> struct resource *mem_res = NULL; >> >> size_t mem_res_sz = 0; >> >> - int ret = 0, i = 0; >> >> - >> >> - code_res.start = __pa_symbol(_text); >> >> - code_res.end = __pa_symbol(_etext) - 1; >> >> - code_res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; >> >> - >> >> - rodata_res.start = __pa_symbol(__start_rodata); >> >> - rodata_res.end = __pa_symbol(__end_rodata) - 1; >> >> - rodata_res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; >> >> - >> >> - data_res.start = __pa_symbol(_data); >> >> - data_res.end = __pa_symbol(_edata) - 1; >> >> - data_res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; >> >> + int num_resources = 0, res_idx = 0; >> >> + int ret = 0; >> >> >> >> - bss_res.start = __pa_symbol(__bss_start); >> >> - bss_res.end = __pa_symbol(__bss_stop) - 1; >> >> - bss_res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; >> >> + /* + 1 as memblock_alloc() might increase >> >> memblock.reserved.cnt */ >> >> + num_resources = memblock.memory.cnt + memblock.reserved.cnt + >> >> 1; >> >> + res_idx = num_resources - 1; >> >> >> >> - mem_res_sz = (memblock.memory.cnt + memblock.reserved.cnt) * >> >> sizeof(*mem_res); >> > >> > Oh, you incorporated my commit ce989f1472ae350e ("RISC-V: Fix >> > out-of-bounds >> > accesses in init_resources()") (from v5.12-rc4) into your patch. >> > Why? This means your patch does not apply against upstream. >> > >> >> Sorry if this looks awkward, I'm under the impression that new >> features >> go on for-next instead of fixes and your patch hasn't been merged on >> for-next yet. I thought it would be cleaner to have one patch to merge >> for init_resources instead of two, and simpler for people to test the >> series. I can rebase this on top of fixes if that works better for you >> or Palmer. > > Ideally the fixes branch is part of the next branch. That also helps > to avoid other people having to fix conflicts when merging both. >
OK I'll re-base this on top of fixes instead.
| |