linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802051406500.14665@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:12:11 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@...com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] numactl --interleave=all doesn't
 works on memoryless node.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

> mbind(2), on the other hand, just masks off any nodes in the 
> nodemask that are not included in the caller's mems_allowed.

Ok so we temporarily adopt these semantics for set_mempolicy.

> 1) modify contextualize_policy to just remove the non-allowed
>    nodes, as is currently done in-line for mbind().  This
>    guarantees that the resulting mask includes only nodes with
>    memory.

Right make ssense. we already contextualize for cpusets.

> Index: Linux/mm/mempolicy.c
> ===================================================================
> --- Linux.orig/mm/mempolicy.c	2008-02-05 11:25:17.000000000 -0500
> +++ Linux/mm/mempolicy.c	2008-02-05 16:03:11.000000000 -0500
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int mpol_check_policy(int mode, n
>  			return -EINVAL;
>  		break;
>  	}
> - 	return nodes_subset(*nodes, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> + 	return 0;
>  }

Hmmm... That is a pretty drastic change.

> @@ -188,8 +188,6 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(int mo
>  	switch (mode) {
>  	case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
>  		policy->v.nodes = *nodes;
> -		nodes_and(policy->v.nodes, policy->v.nodes,
> -					node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
>  		if (nodes_weight(policy->v.nodes) == 0) {
>  			kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, policy);
>  			return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

Do we really need to remove these lines if we change set_mempolicy?

> @@ -426,9 +424,13 @@ static int contextualize_policy(int mode
>  	if (!nodes)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset.
> +	 * This is guaranteed to be a subset of nodes with memory.
> +	 */
>  	cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
> -	if (!cpuset_nodes_subset_current_mems_allowed(*nodes))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	nodes_and(*nodes, *nodes, cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> +
>  	return mpol_check_policy(mode, nodes);
>  }
>  

Ditto?

> @@ -797,7 +799,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start
>  	if (end == start)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	if (mpol_check_policy(mode, nmask))
> +	if (contextualize_policy(mode, nmask))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	new = mpol_new(mode, nmask);
> @@ -915,10 +917,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mbind(unsigned long 
>  	err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
> -	/* Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset */
> -	nodes_and(nodes, nodes, current->mems_allowed);
> -#endif

Would just removing #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS work? mems_allowed falls back to 
node_possible_map.... Shouldnt that be node_online_map?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/