linux-kernel - Re: BUG: mm, numa: test segfaults, only when NUMA balancing is on

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: <20131122212807.GR3062@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:28:07 -0600
From:	Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: mm, numa: test segfaults, only when NUMA balancing is on

> If the warning added by that patch does *not* trigger than can you also
> test this patch? It removes the barriers which should not be necessary
> and takes a reference tot he page before waiting on the lock. The
> previous version did not take the reference because otherwise the
> WARN_ON could not distinguish between a migration waiter and a surprise
> gup.

Sorry for the delay; been a bit busy.  I tested both of these patches on
top of this one (separately, of course):

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg63919.html

I think that's the one you were referring to, if not send me a pointer
to the correct one and I'll give it another shot.  Both patches still
segfaulted, so it doesn't appear that either of these solved the
problem.  If you have anything else you'd like for me to try let me
know.

- Alex
--
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/