| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:53:17 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, liuj97@...il.com,
len.brown@...el.com, cl@...ux.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, wency@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to acpi_memory_device_remove()
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
<isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
>
> The memory device can be removed by 2 ways:
> 1. send eject request by SCI
> 2. echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject
>
> In the 1st case, acpi_memory_disable_device() will be called.
> In the 2nd case, acpi_memory_device_remove() will be called.
> acpi_memory_device_remove() will also be called when we unbind the
> memory device from the driver acpi_memhotplug.
>
> acpi_memory_disable_device() has already implemented a code which
> offlines memory and releases acpi_memory_info struct . But
> acpi_memory_device_remove() has not implemented it yet.
>
> So the patch implements acpi_memory_remove_memory() for offlining
> memory and releasing acpi_memory_info struct. And it is used by both
> acpi_memory_device_remove() and acpi_memory_disable_device().
>
> Additionally, if the type is ACPI_BUS_REMOVAL_EJECT in
> acpi_memory_device_remove() , it means that the user wants to eject
> the memory device. In this case, acpi_memory_device_remove() calls
> acpi_memory_remove_memory().
>
> CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> CC: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
> CC: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-3.6/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.6.orig/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c 2012-10-03 18:55:33.386378909 +0900
> +++ linux-3.6/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c 2012-10-03 18:55:58.624380688 +0900
> @@ -306,24 +306,37 @@ static int acpi_memory_powerdown_device(
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int acpi_memory_disable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> +static int acpi_memory_remove_memory(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> {
> int result;
> struct acpi_memory_info *info, *n;
>
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(info, n, &mem_device->res_list, list) {
Which lock protect this loop?
> + if (!info->enabled)
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + result = remove_memory(info->start_addr, info->length);
> + if (result)
> + return result;
I suspect you need to implement rollback code instead of just return.
> +
> + list_del(&info->list);
> + kfree(info);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int acpi_memory_disable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> +{
> + int result;
>
> /*
> * Ask the VM to offline this memory range.
> * Note: Assume that this function returns zero on success
> */
Write function comment instead of this silly comment.
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(info, n, &mem_device->res_list, list) {
> - if (info->enabled) {
> - result = remove_memory(info->start_addr, info->length);
> - if (result)
> - return result;
> - }
> - kfree(info);
> - }
> + result = acpi_memory_remove_memory(mem_device);
> + if (result)
> + return result;
>
> /* Power-off and eject the device */
> result = acpi_memory_powerdown_device(mem_device);
This patch move acpi_memory_powerdown_device() from ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST
to release callback, but don't explain why.
> @@ -473,12 +486,23 @@ static int acpi_memory_device_add(struct
> static int acpi_memory_device_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type)
> {
> struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device = NULL;
> -
> + int result;
>
> if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> mem_device = acpi_driver_data(device);
> +
> + if (type == ACPI_BUS_REMOVAL_EJECT) {
> + /*
> + * offline and remove memory only when the memory device is
> + * ejected.
> + */
This comment explain nothing. A comment should describe _why_ should we do.
e.g. Why REMOVAL_NORMAL and REMOVEL_EJECT should be ignored. Why
we need remove memory here instead of ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST.
> + result = acpi_memory_remove_memory(mem_device);
> + if (result)
> + return result;
> + }
> +
> kfree(mem_device);
>
> return 0;
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists