linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: avoid alloc memory on offline node

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]

Message-ID: <87r2l23i2b.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:35:40 +0100
From:   Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        <tnowicki@...iumnetworks.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <wanghuiqiang@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        zhongjiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
        linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: avoid alloc memory on offline node

Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue 19-06-18 15:54:26, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> [...]
>> In terms of $SUBJECT, I wonder if it's worth taking the original patch
>> as a temporary fix (it'll also be easier to backport) while we work on
>> fixing these other issues and enabling memoryless nodes.
>
> Well, x86 already does that but copying this antipatern is not really
> nice. So it is good as a quick fix but it would be definitely much
> better to have a robust fix. Who knows how many other places might hit
> this. You certainly do not want to add a hack like this all over...

Completely agree! I was only suggesting it as a temporary measure,
especially as it looked like a proper fix might be invasive.

Another fix might be to change the node specific allocation to node
agnostic allocations. It isn't clear why the allocation is being
requested from a specific node. I think Lorenzo suggested this in one of
the threads.

I've started putting together a set fixing the issues identified in this
thread. It should give a better idea on the best course of action.