linux-kernel - Re: fd3e45436660 ("ACPI / NUMA: ia64: Parse all entries of SRAT memory affinity table")

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 14:24:54 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        tiantao6@...wei.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fd3e45436660 ("ACPI / NUMA: ia64: Parse all entries of SRAT
 memory affinity table")

On Wed 11-04-18 12:48:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> my attention was brought to the %subj commit and either I am missing
> something or the patch is quite dubious. What is it actually trying to
> fix? If a BIOS/FW provides more memblocks than the limit then we would
> get misleading numa topology (numactl -H output) but is the situation
> much better with it applied? Numa init code will refuse to init more
> memblocks than the limit and falls back to dummy_numa_init (AFAICS)
> which will break the topology again and numactl -H will have a
> misleading output anyway.
> 
> So why is the patch an improvement at all?

ping? I would be tempted to simply revert the patch as a wrong fix.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs