| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190701085144.GJ6376@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 10:51:44 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
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 v3 10/11] mm/memory_hotplug: Make
unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail
On Mon 27-05-19 13:11:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We really don't want anything during memory hotunplug to fail.
> We always pass a valid memory block device, that check can go. Avoid
> allocating memory and eventually failing. As we are always called under
> lock, we can use a static piece of memory. This avoids having to put
> the structure onto the stack, having to guess about the stack size
> of callers.
>
> Patch inspired by a patch from Oscar Salvador.
>
> In the future, there might be no need to iterate over nodes at all.
> mem->nid should tell us exactly what to remove. Memory block devices
> with mixed nodes (added during boot) should properly fenced off and never
> removed.
Yeah, we do not allow to offline multi zone (node) ranges so the current
code seems to be over engineered.
Anyway, I am wondering why do we have to strictly check for already
removed nodes links. Is the sysfs code going to complain we we try to
remove again?
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Anyway
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
> 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).
> */
> -int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
> +void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
> {
> - NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask_t, unlinked_nodes, GFP_KERNEL);
> unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn;
> + static nodemask_t unlinked_nodes;
>
> - if (!mem_blk) {
> - NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes);
> - return -EFAULT;
> - }
> - if (!unlinked_nodes)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> - nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes);
> -
> + nodes_clear(unlinked_nodes);
> sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_section_nr);
> sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_section_nr);
> for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
> @@ -827,15 +821,13 @@ int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
> continue;
> if (!node_online(nid))
> continue;
> - if (node_test_and_set(nid, *unlinked_nodes))
> + if (node_test_and_set(nid, unlinked_nodes))
> continue;
> sysfs_remove_link(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj,
> kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
> sysfs_remove_link(&mem_blk->dev.kobj,
> kobject_name(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj));
> }
> - NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes);
> - return 0;
> }
>
> int link_mem_sections(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
> diff --git a/include/linux/node.h b/include/linux/node.h
> index 02a29e71b175..548c226966a2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/node.h
> +++ b/include/linux/node.h
> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ extern int register_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid);
> extern int unregister_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid);
> extern int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
> void *arg);
> -extern int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk);
> +extern void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk);
>
> extern int register_memory_node_under_compute_node(unsigned int mem_nid,
> unsigned int cpu_nid,
> @@ -175,9 +175,8 @@ static inline int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
> {
> return 0;
> }
> -static inline int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
> +static inline void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
> {
> - return 0;
> }
>
> static inline void register_hugetlbfs_with_node(node_registration_func_t reg,
> --
> 2.20.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists