linux-kernel - Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol: remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'

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:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:02:04 -0500
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, mhocko@...e.cz
Subject: Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol:
 remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:17:44AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > Is the assumption of this patch wrong?  Does the specified node have
> > to be online for the fallback to work?
> 
> Nodes that are offline have no control structures allocated and thus
> allocations will likely segfault when the address of the controls
> structure for the node is accessed.
> 
> If we wanted to prevent that then every allocation would have to add a
> check to see if the nodes are online which would impact performance.

Okay, that makes sense, thank you.

Andrew, can you please drop this patch?
--
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/