Re: [PATCH] radix-tree: drop radix_tree_init_maxindex()

On 04.08.2026 14:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/08/2026 1:30 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Radix trees are in principle usable as soon as memory allocation works.
>> (Radix trees with only index 0 populated are usable even earlier.) If only
>> there wasn't height_to_maxindex[], which is filled only by a pre-SMP
>> initcall. The benefit of this array is rather limited - the calculations
>> done by __maxindex() can as well be done by radix_tree_maxindex(); the
>> overhead isn't all this high.
> 
> It's quite possibly lower overhead.  Some simple integer arithmetic vs a
> memory read.
> 
> I think it's worth noting that this was found by UBSAN on a
> multi-segment system:
> 
> (XEN) UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in common/radix-tree.c:83:27
> (XEN) index 12 is out of range for type 'long unsigned int [12]'
> ...
> (XEN) Xen call trace:
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040323f9c>] R common/ubsan/ubsan.c#ubsan_epilogue+0xa/0xd5
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040324d91>] F __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0x9d/0xd4
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d04029265a>] F radix_tree_insert+0x24d/0x570
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d04037ac3e>] F drivers/passthrough/pci.c#alloc_pseg+0xc4/0x165
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040a3b526>] F pci_add_segment+0xc/0x1b
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040a5ad1b>] F acpi_parse_mcfg+0x29b/0x344
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040a3f612>] F acpi_table_parse+0x5d/0x92
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040a5bf55>] F acpi_mmcfg_init+0x3a2/0x71d
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040a71ba6>] F pci_setup+0x17/0x29
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040a784d0>] F __start_xen+0x394c/0x4ed8
> (XEN)    [<ffff82d040423057>] F __high_start+0xb7/0xb8

Added in.

>> Fixes: 21844b0e32e7 ("PCI multi-seg: introduce notion of PCI segments")
>> Fixes: 8dc6738dbb3c ("Update radix-tree.[ch] from upstream Linux to gain RCU awareness")
>> Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>

Thanks.

> All the UBSAN violations are gone.

Good.

> FWIW, there are still issues on this box, even after the fix:
> 
> (XEN) setup 0000:fe:00.0 for d0 failed (-19)
> (XEN) setup 0000:fe:00.1 for d0 failed (-19)
> ...
> (XEN) setup 0000:ff:19.0 for d0 failed (-19)
> (XEN) setup 0000:ff:1a.0 for d0 failed (-19)
> (XEN) setup 0001:fe:00.0 for d0 failed (-19)
> (XEN) setup 0001:fe:00.1 for d0 failed (-19)
> ...
> (XEN) setup 0001:ff:19.0 for d0 failed (-19)
> (XEN) setup 0001:ff:1a.0 for d0 failed (-19)
> 
> These are the PCI devices for aspects of the uncore, mostly performance
> counters it seems.  Despite the lack of information, I think the
> complaint is about setting up the IOMMU context for them.

This looks vaguely familiar. Are these devices properly covered by the ACPI
DMAR table? (In the instance where I think I saw such before, they weren't.)

Jan