| Message ID | acce3a38-9930-349d-5299-95d2aa5c47e4@cybernetics.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v4,1/9] dmapool: fix boundary comparison | expand |
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:41:34AM -0500, Tony Battersby wrote: > Fixes: e34f44b3517f ("pool: Improve memory usage for devices which can't cross boundaries") > Signed-off-by: Tony Battersby <tonyb@cybernetics.com> Acked-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
--- linux/mm/dmapool.c.orig 2018-08-01 17:57:04.000000000 -0400 +++ linux/mm/dmapool.c 2018-08-01 17:57:16.000000000 -0400 @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static void pool_initialise_page(struct do { unsigned int next = offset + pool->size; - if (unlikely((next + pool->size) >= next_boundary)) { + if (unlikely((next + pool->size) > next_boundary)) { next = next_boundary; next_boundary += pool->boundary; }
Fix the boundary comparison when constructing the list of free blocks for the case that 'size' is a power of two. Since 'boundary' is also a power of two, that would make 'boundary' a multiple of 'size', in which case a single block would never cross the boundary. This bug would cause some of the allocated memory to be wasted (but not leaked). Example: size = 512 boundary = 2048 allocation = 4096 Address range 0 - 511 512 - 1023 1024 - 1535 1536 - 2047 * 2048 - 2559 2560 - 3071 3072 - 3583 3584 - 4095 * Prior to this fix, the address ranges marked with "*" would not have been used even though they didn't cross the given boundary. Fixes: e34f44b3517f ("pool: Improve memory usage for devices which can't cross boundaries") Signed-off-by: Tony Battersby <tonyb@cybernetics.com> --- Even though I described this as a "fix", it does not seem important enough to Cc: stable from a strict reading of the stable kernel rules. IOW, it is not "bothering" anyone.