[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/arm: add warning if memory modules overlap
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:39:07PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On 10/9/19 8:47 PM, Brian Woods wrote: > >It's possible for a misconfigured device tree to cause Xen to crash when > >there are overlapping addresses in the memory modules. Add a warning > >when printing the addresses to let the user know there's a possible > >issue when DEBUG is enabled. > > > >Signed-off-by: Brian Woods <brian.woods@xxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > >sample output: > >... > >(XEN) MODULE[0]: 0000000001400000 - 000000000153b8f1 Xen > >(XEN) MODULE[1]: 00000000076d2000 - 00000000076dc080 Device Tree > >(XEN) MODULE[2]: 00000000076df000 - 0000000007fff364 Ramdisk > >(XEN) MODULE[3]: 0000000000080000 - 0000000003180000 Kernel > >(XEN) RESVD[0]: 00000000076d2000 - 00000000076dc000 > >(XEN) RESVD[1]: 00000000076df000 - 0000000007fff364 > >(XEN) > >(XEN) WARNING: modules Xen and Kernel overlap > >(XEN) > >(XEN) Command line: console=dtuart dtuart=serial0 dom0_mem=1G bootscrub=0 > >maxcpus=1 timer_slop=0 > >... > > > > xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c > >index 08fb59f..3cb0c43 100644 > >--- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c > >+++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c > >@@ -387,6 +387,23 @@ static void __init early_print_info(void) > > mem_resv->bank[j].start + mem_resv->bank[j].size - 1); > > } > > printk("\n"); > >+ > >+#ifndef NDEBUG > >+ /* > >+ * Assuming all combinations are checked, only the starting address > >+ * has to be checked if it's in another memory module's range. > >+ */ > >+ for ( i = 0 ; i < mods->nr_mods; i++ ) > >+ for ( j = 0 ; j < mods->nr_mods; j++ ) > >+ if ( (i != j) && > >+ (mods->module[i].start >= mods->module[j].start) && > >+ (mods->module[i].start < > >+ mods->module[j].start + mods->module[j].size) ) > >+ printk("WARNING: modules %-12s and %-12s overlap\n", > >+ boot_module_kind_as_string(mods->module[i].kind), > >+ boot_module_kind_as_string(mods->module[j].kind)); > > I am not entirely happy with the double for-loop here. > > As we already go through all the modules in add_boot_module(). Could you > look whether this check could be part of it? > > This should also allow to have this check for non-debug build as well. > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall To make sure the module is going to get added, you'd need to do the check after the for loop. This means there's going to be multiple for loops just spread over the course of adding the boot modules rather than one place. I had this before but decided against it but after changing it to both starts rather than the stand and end (ends look much uglier), it looks cleaner. for ( i = 0 ; i < mods->nr_mods-1; i++ ) for ( j = i+1 ; j < mods->nr_mods; j++ ) if ( ((mods->module[i].start >= mods->module[j].start) && (mods->module[i].start <= mods->module[j].start + mods->module[j].size)) || ((mods->module[j].start >= mods->module[i].start) && (mods->module[j].start <= mods->module[i].start + mods->module[i].size)) ) printk("WARNING: modules %-12s and %-12s overlap\n", boot_module_kind_as_string(mods->module[i].kind), boot_module_kind_as_string(mods->module[j].kind)); That's also a possibility. I just don't see a way around it, computationally. You can split where the loops are executed but in the end the same amount of checks/total iterations have to be run. I was talking to someone and he suggested you could just check Xen at early boot and then check other modules later. -- Brian Woods _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |