[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: actually skip the first MAX_ORDER bits in pfn_pdx_hole_setup

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

pfn_pdx_hole_setup is meant to skip the first MAX_ORDER bits, but
actually it only skips the first MAX_ORDER-1 bits. The issue was
probably introduced by bdb5439c3f, when changing to loop to start from
MAX_ORDER-1 an adjustment by 1 was needed in the call to find_next_bit()
but not done.

Fix the issue by passing j+1 and i+1 to find_next_zero_bit and
find_next_bit. Also add a check for i >= BITS_PER_LONG because
find_{,next_}zero_bit() on x86 assume their last argument to be less
than their middle one.

Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
CC: andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx
CC: JBeulich@xxxxxxxx
CC: George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx
CC: tim@xxxxxxx
CC: wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx

---
 xen/common/pdx.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/common/pdx.c b/xen/common/pdx.c
index 50c21b6..bb7e437 100644
--- a/xen/common/pdx.c
+++ b/xen/common/pdx.c
@@ -83,8 +83,10 @@ void __init pfn_pdx_hole_setup(unsigned long mask)
      */
     for ( j = MAX_ORDER-1; ; )
     {
-        i = find_next_zero_bit(&mask, BITS_PER_LONG, j);
-        j = find_next_bit(&mask, BITS_PER_LONG, i);
+        i = find_next_zero_bit(&mask, BITS_PER_LONG, j + 1);
+        if ( i >= BITS_PER_LONG )
+            break;
+        j = find_next_bit(&mask, BITS_PER_LONG, i + 1);
         if ( j >= BITS_PER_LONG )
             break;
         if ( j - i > hole_shift )
-- 
1.9.1


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel