linux-kernel - Re: [v5 2/3] mm/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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 11:04:01 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [v5 2/3] mm/hotplug: make remove_memory() interface useable

On 5/6/19 11:01 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> +void __remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>>  {
>>> +
>>> +     /*
>>> +      * trigger BUG() is some memory is not offlined prior to calling this
>>> +      * function
>>> +      */
>>> +     if (try_remove_memory(nid, start, size))
>>> +             BUG();
>>> +}
>> Could we call this remove_offline_memory()?  That way, it makes _some_
>> sense why we would BUG() if the memory isn't offline.
> Please WARN() instead of BUG() because failing to remove memory should
> not be system fatal.

That is my preference as well.  But, the existing code BUG()s, so I'm
OK-ish with this staying for the moment until we have a better handle on
what all the callers do if this fails.