linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Get rid of NODEMASK

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]

Message-ID: <1554236175.2828.5.camel@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 02 Apr 2019 22:16:15 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mike.kravetz@...cle.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Get rid of NODEMASK_ALLOC

On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 13:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It took a bit of sleuthing to figure out that this patch applies to
> Mike's "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node specific
> nr_hugepages".  Should they be folded together?  I'm thinking not.

Sorry Andrew, I should have mentioned that this patch was based on
Mike's "hugetlb fix potential over/underflow" patch.

Given said that, I would keep the two patches separated, as that one
is a fix, and this one is a cleanup.

> (Also, should "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node
> specific nr_hugepages" have been -stableified?  I also think not, but
> I
> bet it happens anyway).

I am not sure of the consequences in older branches, but if it is not
too much of a hassle, it might be worth? Mike might know better here.

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3