[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F327EB605@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:46:26 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Bugfix] sched: fix possible invalid memory access caused by
CPU hot-addition
> > > 1) Handle CPU hot-addition event
> > > 1.a) gather platform specific information
> > > 1.b) associate hot-added CPU with a node
> > > 1.c) create CPU device
> > > 2) User online hot-added CPUs through sysfs:
> > > 2.a) cpu_up()
> > > 2.b) ->try_online_node()
> > > 2.c) ->hotadd_new_pgdat()
> > > 2.d) ->node_set_online()
> > >
> > > So between 1.b and 2.c, kmalloc_node(nid) may cause invalid
> > > memory access without the node_online(nid) check.
> >
> > Any why was all this not in the Changelog?
>
> Also, do explain what kind of hardware you needed to trigger this. This
> code has been like this for a good while.
With your proposed fix in place the allocations will succeed - but they
will be done from other nodes ... and this cpu will have to do a remote
NUMA access for the rest of time.
It would be better to switch the order above - add the memory first,
then add the cpus. Is that possible?
-Tony
--
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