Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: kasan: abstract _text and _end to KERNEL_START/END

[Lecopzer Chen]

I think it would be better to leave this for you since I'm not
familiar with the relationship
between vmemmap() and NUMA_NO_NODE.

So I would just keep this patch in next version, is this fine with you?


Thanks for your help:)

Lecopzer



Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2021年2月4日 週四 下午10:55寫道：
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 10:51:27PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 06:32:50PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote:
> > > > Arm64 provide defined macro for KERNEL_START and KERNEL_END,
> > > > thus replace them by the abstration instead of using _text and _end.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 6 +++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c
> > > > index 39b218a64279..fa8d7ece895d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c
> > > > @@ -218,8 +218,8 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void)
> > > >   phys_addr_t pa_start, pa_end;
> > > >   u64 i;
> > > >
> > > > - kimg_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(_text) & PAGE_MASK;
> > > > - kimg_shadow_end = PAGE_ALIGN((u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(_end));
> > > > + kimg_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(KERNEL_START) & PAGE_MASK;
> > > > + kimg_shadow_end = PAGE_ALIGN((u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(KERNEL_END));
> > > >
> > > >   mod_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)MODULES_VADDR);
> > > >   mod_shadow_end = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)MODULES_END);
> > > > @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void)
> > > >   clear_pgds(KASAN_SHADOW_START, KASAN_SHADOW_END);
> > > >
> > > >   kasan_map_populate(kimg_shadow_start, kimg_shadow_end,
> > > > -                    early_pfn_to_nid(virt_to_pfn(lm_alias(_text))));
> > > > +                    early_pfn_to_nid(virt_to_pfn(lm_alias(KERNEL_START))));
> > >
> > > To be honest, I think this whole line is pointless. We should be able to
> > > pass NUMA_NO_NODE now that we're not abusing the vmemmap() allocator to
> > > populate the shadow.
> >
> > Do we need to fix this in this series? it seems another topic.
> > If not, should this patch be removed in this series?
>
> Since you're reposting anyway, you may as well include a patch doing that.
> If you don't, then I will.
>
> Will