linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [11/19] HWPOISON: Refactor truncate to allow direct truncating of page v2

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: <20090806134830.4f3931d2@skybase>
Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:48:30 +0200
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com, hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [11/19] HWPOISON: Refactor truncate to allow direct
 truncating of page v2

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:16:42 +0200
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I haven't brought up the caller at this point, but IIRC you had
> > > the page locked and mapping confirmed at this point anyway so
> > > it would never be an error for your code.
> > > 
> > > Probably it would be nice to just force callers to verify the page.
> > > Normally IMO it is much nicer and clearer to do it at the time the
> > > page gets locked, unless there is good reason otherwise.
> > 
> > Ok. I think I'll just keep it as it is for now.
> > 
> > The only reason I added the error code was to make truncate_inode_page
> > fit into .error_remove_page, but then latter I did another wrapper
> > so it could be removed again. But it won't hurt to have it either.
> 
> OK, it's more of a cleanup/nit.
> 
> One question I had for the others (Andrew? other mm guys?) what is the
> feelings of merging this feature? Leaving aside exact implementation
> and just considering the high level design and cost/benefit. Last time
> there were some people objecting, so I wonder the situation now? So
> does anybody need more convincing? :)
> 
> Also I will just cc linux-arch. It would be interesting to know whether
> powerpc, ia64, or s390 or others would be interested to use this feature?

This is not relevant for s390, as current machines do transparent memory
sparing if a memory module goes bad. Really old machines reported bad
memory to the OS by means of a machine check (storage error uncorrected
and storage error corrected). I have never seen this happen, the level
below the OS deals with these errors for us.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/