Re: [RFC v3 -next] cma: Enforce non-zero pageblock_order during cma_init_reserved_mem()

From: IBM
Date: Tue Nov 12 2024 - 20:56:07 EST


"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> cma_init_reserved_mem() checks base and size alignment with
> CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES. However, some users might call this during
> early boot when pageblock_order is 0. That means if base and size does
> not have pageblock_order alignment, it can cause functional failures
> during cma activate area.
>
> So let's enforce pageblock_order to be non-zero during
> cma_init_reserved_mem().
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2 -> v3: Separated the series into 2 as discussed in v2.
> [v2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/cover.1728585512.git.ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> mm/cma.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

Gentle ping. Is this going into -next?

-ritesh

>
> diff --git a/mm/cma.c b/mm/cma.c
> index 3e9724716bad..36d753e7a0bf 100644
> --- a/mm/cma.c
> +++ b/mm/cma.c
> @@ -182,6 +182,15 @@ int __init cma_init_reserved_mem(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
> if (!size || !memblock_is_region_reserved(base, size))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + /*
> + * CMA uses CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES as alignment requirement which
> + * needs pageblock_order to be initialized. Let's enforce it.
> + */
> + if (!pageblock_order) {
> + pr_err("pageblock_order not yet initialized. Called during early boot?\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> /* ensure minimal alignment required by mm core */
> if (!IS_ALIGNED(base | size, CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES))
> return -EINVAL;
> --
> 2.46.0