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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:08:28 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Cc:     steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: sections are not offlined during memory hotremove

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:30:02PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Memory hotplug, and hotremove operate with per-block granularity. If
> machine has large amount of memory (more than 64G), the size of memory
> block can span multiple sections. By mistake, during hotremove we set
> only the first section to offline state.
> 
> The bug was discovered because kernel selftest started to fail:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180423011247.GK5563@yexl-desktop
> 
> After commit, "mm/memory_hotplug: optimize probe routine". But, the bug is
> older than this commit. In this optimization we also added a check for
> sections to be in a proper state during hotplug operation.
> 
> Fixes: 2d070eab2e82 ("mm: consider zone which is not fully populated to have holes")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
>  mm/sparse.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> index 62eef264a7bd..73dc2fcc0eab 100644
> --- a/mm/sparse.c
> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> @@ -629,7 +629,7 @@ void offline_mem_sections(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>  	unsigned long pfn;
>  
>  	for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> -		unsigned long section_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(start_pfn);
> +		unsigned long section_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn);
>  		struct mem_section *ms;
>  
>  		/*
> -- 
> 2.17.0

<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists