[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181029112504.GF14127@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:25:04 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/numa: Add more vetting in numa_set_distance()
Hi John,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:57:47PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Currently it is acceptable to set the distance between 2 separate nodes to
> LOCAL_DISTANCE.
>
> Reject this as it is invalid.
>
> This change avoids a crash reported in [1].
>
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg683304.html
>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 146c04c..6092e3d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -335,7 +335,8 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
> }
>
> if ((u8)distance != distance ||
> - (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {
> + (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE) ||
> + (from != to && distance == LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {
The current code here is more-or-less lifted from the x86 implementation
of numa_set_distance(). I think we should either factor out the sanity check
into a core helper or make the core code robust to these funny configurations.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists