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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 11 Aug 2018 10:08:46 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        yasu.isimatu@...il.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
        david@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Cleanup
 unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 03:37:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I guess so.  But the node_online() check was silently removed?

A node can only get offline if all the memory and CPUs associated
with it are removed.

This is being checked in remove_memory()->try_offline_node().
There we check whether the node has still valid sections or not,
and if there are still CPUs associated to it.

In the case that either we still have valid sections or that we have
CPUs linked to this node, we do not offline it.

So we cannot really be removing a memory from a node that is offline,
that is why it is safe to drop the check.

It was my mistake not to explain that properly in the changelog though.
I will send a V2 fixing up all you pointed out and explaining
why it is safe to drop the check.

Thanks
-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3

Powered by blists - more mailing lists