Re: [RFC][PATCHES] iov_iter.c rewrite
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon Dec 08 2014 - 13:08:37 EST
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 05:58:05PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> It looks like the second VIRTUAL_BUG_ON() in __phys_addr(), most likely
> from __pa(), from virt_to_page(), from
> unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)v.iov_base, end;
> size_t len = v.iov_len + (*start = addr & (PAGE_SIZE - 1));
>
> if (len > maxpages * PAGE_SIZE)
> len = maxpages * PAGE_SIZE;
> addr &= ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> for (end = addr + len; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE)
> get_page(*pages++ = virt_to_page(addr));
> return len - *start;
> in iov_iter_get_pages(). And that's ITER_KVEC case there... Further
> call chain looks like dio_refill_pages(), from dio_get_page(), from
> do_direct_io(), eventually from kernel_read() and finit_module(),
> Presumably called on O_DIRECT descriptor...
FWIW, virt_to_page() is probably not OK to call on an address in the
middle of vmalloc'ed area, is it? Would
for (end = addr + len; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
ACCESS_ONCE(*(char *)addr);
get_page(*pages++ = virt_to_page(addr));
}
be a safe replacement for the loop in the above?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/