>>> + if (len > TASK_SIZE) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >> >> Shouldn't that be addr+len instead? The check looks incomplete >> otherwise. And you meant ">=" I guess? > > No. Have a look at the other hugetlb_get_unmapped_area() > implementations. Because this is in the get_unmapped_area() path, > 'addr' is just a hint,
Ah I missed this vital piece of information, thanks for the explanation. Care putting in a code comment pointing this out? > so checking addr+len would give bogus > failures. This test is, I believe, essentially an optimization - if > it fails, we're never going to find a suitable addr, so we might as > well give up now. Yes, it all makes sense now. >>> - /* Paranoia, caller should have dealt with this */ >>> - BUG_ON((addr + len) > 0x100000000UL); >>> - >> >> Any real reason to remove the paranoia check? If it's trivially >> always satisfied, the compiler will get rid of it for you :-) > > Yes - this is the very bug on which was causing crashes - the "caller > should have dealt with this" comment is wrong. The test has been > moved into htlb_check_hinted_area() and now simply fails (and so falls > back to searching for a suitable address), rather than BUG()ing. Yep. Cheers, Segher ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
