linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Make __remove

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bfa88494-6e4b-9139-21a1-e80546d2dac9@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:54:26 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Make __remove_section() never
 fail

On 17.04.19 15:56, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-04-09 at 12:01 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Let's just warn in case a section is not valid instead of failing to
>> remove somewhere in the middle of the process, returning an error
>> that
>> will be mostly ignored by callers.
>>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
>> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
>> Cc: Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
>> Cc: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> 
> Just a nit:
> 
> I think this could be combined with patch#2.
> The only reason to fail in here is 1) !valid_section 2)
> !present_section.
> As I stated in patch#2, one cannot be without the other, so makes sense
> to rip present_section check from unregister_mem_section() as well.
> Then, you could combine both changelogs explaining the whole thing, and
> why we do not need the present_section check either.
> 

If I have to resend the whole thing, I might do that. Otherwise we can
drop the present_section() based on your explanation later.

Thanks!

> But the change looks good to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb