[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1417410134.16178.2.camel@concordia>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 16:02:14 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab: Fix nodeid bounds check for non-contiguous
node IDs
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 15:28 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> The bounds check for nodeid in ____cache_alloc_node gives false
> positives on machines where the node IDs are not contiguous, leading
> to a panic at boot time. For example, on a POWER8 machine the node
> IDs are typically 0, 1, 16 and 17. This means that num_online_nodes()
> returns 4, so when ____cache_alloc_node is called with nodeid = 16 the
> VM_BUG_ON triggers, like this:
...
>
> To fix this, we instead compare the nodeid with MAX_NUMNODES, and
> additionally make sure it isn't negative (since nodeid is an int).
> The check is there mainly to protect the array dereference in the
> get_node() call in the next line, and the array being dereferenced is
> of size MAX_NUMNODES. If the nodeid is in range but invalid (for
> example if the node is off-line), the BUG_ON in the next line will
> catch that.
When did this break? How come we only just noticed?
Also needs:
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
cheers
--
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