On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:01:50PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > @@ -166,11 +166,20 @@ hugetlb_get_unmapped_area(struct file *file, unsigned
> > long addr,
> >
> > if (addr) {
> > addr = ALIGN(addr, huge_page_size(h));
> > + if (TASK_SIZE - len >= addr)
> > + goto get_unmapped_area;
>
> That's wrong. You got it right in arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown() ...
Ouch.
Please ignore selftest patch. I'll rework it to cover hugetlb.
> > +
> > + /* See a comment in arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown */
>
> This is lame, really.
>
> > + if ((addr > DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW) !=
> > + (addr + len > DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW))
> > + goto get_unmapped_area;
>
> Instead of duplicating that horrible formatted condition and adding this
> lousy comment why can't you just put all of it (including the TASK_SIZE
> check) into a proper validation function and put the comment there?
>
> The fixed up variant of your patch below does that.
>
> Aside of that please spend a bit more time on describing things precisely
> at the technical and factual level next time. I fixed that up (once more)
> both in the comment and the changelog.
>
> Please double check.
Works fine.
> +bool mmap_address_hint_valid(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len)
> +{
> + if (TASK_SIZE - len < addr)
> + return false;
> +#if CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS >= 5
> + return (addr > DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW) == (addr + len > DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW);
Is it micro optimization? I don't feel it necessary. It's not that hot
codepath to care about few cycles. (And one more place to care about for
boot-time switching.)
If you think it's needed, maybe IS_ENABLED() instead?
> +#else
> + return true;
> +#endif
> +}
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
