From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE45BC433DF for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A027E20684 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726512AbgGQESv (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:18:51 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:35238 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725807AbgGQESv (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:18:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06H4IRsY125396; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:18:42 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329r21chj8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:18:41 -0400 Received: from m0098413.ppops.net (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06H4IfVc126964; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:18:41 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329r21ch61-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:18:41 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06H4An6u008164; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:17:32 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 327527k6bk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:17:32 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06H4G6LP28049780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:16:06 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870D85205A; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:17:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.102.1.129] (unknown [9.102.1.129]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F8052057; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:17:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] ppc64/kexec_file: restrict memory usage of kdump kernel To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Pingfan Liu , Petr Tesarik , Nayna Jain , Kexec-ml , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Mimi Zohar , lkml , linuxppc-dev , Sourabh Jain , Andrew Morton , Dave Young , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <159466091925.24747.6840028682768745598.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <87365s9ysj.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> <875zance3n.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> From: Hari Bathini Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:47:25 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <875zance3n.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-16_11:2020-07-16,2020-07-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_definite policy=outbound score=100 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=100 mlxscore=100 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=-1000 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007170025 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 17/07/20 3:33 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Hari Bathini writes: > >> On 16/07/20 4:22 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >>> >>> Hari Bathini writes: >>> >>>> + * each representing a memory range. >>>> + */ >>>> + ranges = (len >> 2) / (n_mem_addr_cells + n_mem_size_cells); >>>> + >>>> + for (i = 0; i < ranges; i++) { >>>> + base = of_read_number(prop, n_mem_addr_cells); >>>> + prop += n_mem_addr_cells; >>>> + end = base + of_read_number(prop, n_mem_size_cells) - 1; >> >> prop is not used after the above. >> >>> You need to `prop += n_mem_size_cells` here. >> >> But yeah, adding it would make it look complete in some sense.. > > Isn't it used in the next iteration of the loop? Memory@XXX/reg typically has only one range. I was looking at it from that perspective which is not right. Will update. Thanks Hari