linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-hotplug: Add sysfs hot-remove trigger

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, 6 Feb 2019 20:07:28 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-hotplug: Add sysfs hot-remove trigger

On 2019-02-06 6:45 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:03:53PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> ARCH_MEMORY_PROBE is a useful thing for testing and debugging hotplug,
>> but being able to exercise the (arguably trickier) hot-remove path would
>> be even more useful. Extend the feature to allow removal of offline
>> sections to be triggered manually to aid development.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>> ---
>>
>> This is inspired by a previous proposal[1], but in coming up with a
>> more robust interface I ended up rewriting the whole thing from
>> scratch. The lack of documentation is semi-deliberate, since I don't
>> like the idea of anyone actually relying on this interface as ABI, but
>> as a handy tool it felt useful enough to be worth sharing :)
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/22d34fe30df0fbacbfceeb47e20cb1184af73585.1511433386.git.ar@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
>>
>>   drivers/base/memory.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> You have to add new Documentation/ABI entries for each new sysfs file
> you add :(

Ah, the documentation provided is adapted from the documentation for the 
existing "probe" attribute it builds upon ;)

But yeah, perhaps I should have tagged this post as an RFC. Much as I 
dislike it being anywhere near an ABI, if everyone thinks the feature is 
merge-worthy I'll go ahead and write up some proper doc entries too.

Robin.