linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Make unregister_memory_block_under

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: <1d369ae4-7183-b455-646a-65bbbe697281@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 09:21:43 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Make
 unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail


>>  drivers/base/node.c  | 18 +++++-------------
>>  include/linux/node.h |  5 ++---
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
>> index 04fdfa99b8bc..9be88fd05147 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
>> @@ -803,20 +803,14 @@ int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk, void *arg)
>>
>>  /*
>>   * Unregister memory block device under all nodes that it spans.
>> + * Has to be called with mem_sysfs_mutex held (due to unlinked_nodes).
> 
> Given this comment can bitrot relative to the implementation lets
> instead add an explicit:
> 
>     lockdep_assert_held(&mem_sysfs_mutex);

That would require to make the mutex non-static. Is that what you
suggest, or any other alternative?

Thanks Dan!

> 
> With that you can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb