linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: soft-offline: fix race against page allocation

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:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:43:34 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        xishi.qiuxishi@...baba-inc.com, zy.zhengyi@...baba-inc.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: soft-offline: fix race against page
 allocation

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:30 +0900 Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> wrote:

> I've updated the patchset based on feedbacks:
> 
> - updated comments (from Andrew),
> - moved calling set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page() from mm/migrate.c to mm/memory-failure.c,
>   which is necessary to check the return code of set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page(),
> - lkp bot reported a build error when only 1/2 is applied.
> 
>   >    mm/memory-failure.c: In function 'soft_offline_huge_page':
>   > >> mm/memory-failure.c:1610:8: error: implicit declaration of function
>   > 'set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page'; did you mean 'is_free_buddy_page'?
>   > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   >        if (set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page(page))
>   >            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   >            is_free_buddy_page
>   >    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
>   set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page() is defined in 2/2, so we can't use it
>   in 1/2. Simply doing s/set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page/!TestSetPageHWPoison/
>   will fix this.
> 
> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/968
> 

Quite a bit of discussion on these two, but no actual acks or
review-by's?