On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:54:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
index c5b7fb2774d0..cc071c6f7d4d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
See the comment above (it was there before the patch). 'signed' can be@@ -9,19 +9,21 @@that's a really odd way of writing it, 'long' is signed by default ...
#define PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1,UL) << PAGE_SHIFT)
#define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
+#define PMD_PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << PMD_SHIFT)
+#define PMD_PAGE_MASK (~(PMD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
+
+#define PUD_PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << PUD_SHIFT)
+#define PUD_PAGE_MASK (~(PUD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
+
#define __PHYSICAL_MASK ((phys_addr_t)((1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1))
#define __VIRTUAL_MASK ((1UL << __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1)
-/* Cast PAGE_MASK to a signed type so that it is sign-extended if
+/* Cast *PAGE_MASK to a signed type so that it is sign-extended if
virtual addresses are 32-bits but physical addresses are larger
(ie, 32-bit PAE). */
#define PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK (((signed long)PAGE_MASK) & __PHYSICAL_MASK)
-
-#define PMD_PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << PMD_SHIFT)
-#define PMD_PAGE_MASK (~(PMD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
-
-#define PUD_PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << PUD_SHIFT)
-#define PUD_PAGE_MASK (~(PUD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
+#define PHYSICAL_PMD_PAGE_MASK (((signed long)PMD_PAGE_MASK) & __PHYSICAL_MASK)
+#define PHYSICAL_PUD_PAGE_MASK (((signed long)PUD_PAGE_MASK) & __PHYSICAL_MASK)
considered as documentation -- we want sign-extension here.
There seems to be 150+ such cases in the kernel source though - weird.Again, see the comment.
More importantly, how does this improve things on 32-bit PAE kernels? If I follow
the values correctly then PMD_PAGE_MASK is 'UL' i.e. 32-bit:
+#define PMD_PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << PMD_SHIFT)thus PHYSICAL_PMD_PAGE_MASK is 32-bit too:
+#define PMD_PAGE_MASK (~(PMD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
+#define PHYSICAL_PMD_PAGE_MASK (((signed long)PMD_PAGE_MASK) & __PHYSICAL_MASK)so how is the bug fixed?
I've checked that it generates correct value (using kernel/bounds.c).