linux-kernel - Re: [Bugfix] sched: fix possible invalid memory access caused by CPU hot-addition

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:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:04:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugfix] sched: fix possible invalid memory access caused by CPU
 hot-addition

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:15:15 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:27:15PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > > When calling kzalloc_node(size, flags, node), we should first check
> > > whether node is onlined, otherwise it may cause invalid memory access
> > > as below.
> > 
> > But this is only for memory less node crap, right? 
> 
> um, why are memoryless nodes crap?

Why wouldn't they be? Having CPUs with no local memory seems decidedly
suboptimal.
--
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/