[PATCH] arm64: Correct virt_addr_valid

[Catalin Marinas]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:13:33PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> There is actually a concern here, and that's if the v:p translation isn't
> linear, could it return false results?
> 
> According to my grep skills, we have one platform where this is true -
> Realview:
> 
>  * 256MB @ 0x00000000 -> PAGE_OFFSET
>  * 512MB @ 0x20000000 -> PAGE_OFFSET + 0x10000000
>  * 256MB @ 0x80000000 -> PAGE_OFFSET + 0x30000000
> 
> The v:p translation is done via:
> 
>          ((virt) >= PAGE_OFFSET2 ? (virt) - PAGE_OFFSET2 + 0x80000000 : \
>           (virt) >= PAGE_OFFSET1 ? (virt) - PAGE_OFFSET1 + 0x20000000 : \
>           (virt) - PAGE_OFFSET)
> 
> Now the questions - what do values below PAGE_OFFSET give us?  Very
> large numbers, which pfn_valid() should return false for.  What about
> values > PAGE_OFFSET2 + 256MB?  The same.
> 
> So this all _looks_ fine.  Wait a moment, what about highmem?  Let's say
> that the last 256MB is only available as highmem, and let's go back to
> Laura's patch:
> 
> old:
> #define	virt_addr_valid(kaddr)	(((void *)(kaddr) >= (void *)PAGE_OFFSET) && \
> 				 ((void *)(kaddr) < (void *)high_memory))
> new:
> #define	virt_addr_valid(kaddr)	pfn_valid(__pa(kaddr) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
> 
> The former _excludes_ highmem, but the latter _includes_ it.
> 
> virt_addr_valid(v) should only ever return _true_ for the lowmem area,
> never anywhere else - that's part of its point.  It's there to answer
> the question "is this a valid virtual pointer which I can dereference".
> 
> So... We actually need a combination of both of these tests.

Just to avoid any confusion, on arm64 we don't have non-linear v:p
translation as there is plenty of VA space to live with holes. So the
original patch is fine.

On 32-bit, it could be a problem if you have holes in the VA space, so
it needs both high_memory and pfn_valid checks.

-- 
Catalin