linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 1/7] acpi,memory-hotplug: introduce a mutex lock to protect the list in acpi_memory

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]

Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:34:01 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/7] acpi,memory-hotplug: introduce a mutex lock to protect the list in acpi_memory_device

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:04:53 AM Wen Congyang wrote:
> At 11/13/2012 05:00 AM, Toshi Kani Wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 19:04 +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
> >> This 2 events may happen at the same time, so we may touch
> >> acpi_memory_device.res_list at the same time. This patch
> >> introduce a lock to protect this list.
> > 
> > Hi Wen,
> > 
> > This race condition is not unique in memory hot-remove as the sysfs
> > eject interface is created for all objects with _EJ0.  For CPU
> > hot-remove, I addressed this race condition by making the notify handler
> > to run the hot-remove operation on kacpi_hotplug_wq by calling
> > acpi_os_hotplug_execute().  This serializes the hot-remove operations
> > among the two events since the sysfs eject also runs on
> > kacpi_hotplug_wq.  This way is much simpler and is easy to maintain,
> > although it does not allow both operations to run simultaneously (which
> > I do not think we need).  Can it be used for memory hot-remove as well?
> 
> Good idea. I will update it.

Still waiting. :-)

But if you want that in v3.8, please repost ASAP.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/