linux-kernel - fd3e45436660 ("ACPI / NUMA: ia64: Parse all entries of SRAT memory affinity table")

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180411104832.GF23400@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:48:32 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        tiantao6@...wei.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: fd3e45436660 ("ACPI / NUMA: ia64: Parse all entries of SRAT memory
 affinity table")

Hi,
my attention was brought to the %subj commit and either I am missing
something or the patch is quite dubious. What is it actually trying to
fix? If a BIOS/FW provides more memblocks than the limit then we would
get misleading numa topology (numactl -H output) but is the situation
much better with it applied? Numa init code will refuse to init more
memblocks than the limit and falls back to dummy_numa_init (AFAICS)
which will break the topology again and numactl -H will have a
misleading output anyway.

So why is the patch an improvement at all?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs