linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/alloc: fallback to first node if the wanted node offline

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:49:34 +0800
From:   Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/alloc: fallback to first node if the wanted node offline

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:16 PM Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:53 AM David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > index 76f8db0..8324953 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > @@ -453,6 +453,8 @@ static inline int gfp_zonelist(gfp_t flags)
> > >   */
> > >  static inline struct zonelist *node_zonelist(int nid, gfp_t flags)
> > >  {
> > > +     if (unlikely(!node_online(nid)))
> > > +             nid = first_online_node;
> > >       return NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelists + gfp_zonelist(flags);
> > >  }
> > >
> >
> > So we're passing the node id from dev_to_node() to kmalloc which
> > interprets that as the preferred node and then does node_zonelist() to
> > find the zonelist at allocation time.
> >
> > What happens if we fix this in alloc_dr()?  Does anything else cause
> > problems?
> >
> I think it is better to fix it mm, since it can protect any new
> similar bug in future. While fixing in alloc_dr() just work at present
>
> > And rather than using first_online_node, would next_online_node() work?
> >
> What is the gain? Is it for memory pressure on node0?
>
Maybe I got your point now.  Do you try to give a cheap assumption on
nearest neigh of this node?

Thanks,
Pingfan