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: <733fc7d1-54ae-d3f2-c006-671a2ed1c70f@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:57:34 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in
 try_remove_memory()

On 25.09.19 04:57, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Currently during memory hot add procedure, memory gets into memblock before
> calling arch_add_memory() which creates it's linear mapping.
> 
> add_memory_resource() {
> 	..................
> 	memblock_add_node()
> 	..................
> 	arch_add_memory()
> 	..................
> }
> 
> But during memory hot remove procedure, removal from memblock happens first
> before it's linear mapping gets teared down with arch_remove_memory() which
> is not consistent. Resource removal should happen in reverse order as they
> were added. However this does not pose any problem for now, unless there is
> an assumption regarding linear mapping. One example was a subtle failure on
> arm64 platform [1]. Though this has now found a different solution.
> 
> try_remove_memory() {
> 	..................
> 	memblock_free()
> 	memblock_remove()
> 	..................
> 	arch_remove_memory()
> 	..................
> }
> 
> This changes the sequence of resource removal including memblock and linear
> mapping tear down during memory hot remove which will now be the reverse
> order in which they were added during memory hot add. The changed removal
> order looks like the following.
> 
> try_remove_memory() {
> 	..................
> 	arch_remove_memory()
> 	..................
> 	memblock_free()
> 	memblock_remove()
> 	..................
> }
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11127623/
> 
> 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: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> ---
> Changes in V2:
> 
> - Changed the commit message as per Michal and David 
> 
> Changed in V1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11146361/
> 
> Original patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/3/327
> 
> Memory hot remove now works on arm64 without this because a recent commit
> 60bb462fc7ad ("drivers/base/node.c: simplify unregister_memory_block_under_nodes()").
> 
> David mentioned that re-ordering should still make sense for consistency
> purpose (removing stuff in the reverse order they were added). This patch
> is now detached from arm64 hot-remove series.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/3/326
> 
>  mm/memory_hotplug.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index 49f7bf91c25a..4f7d426a84d0 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1763,13 +1763,13 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>  
>  	/* remove memmap entry */
>  	firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM");
> -	memblock_free(start, size);
> -	memblock_remove(start, size);
>  
>  	/* remove memory block devices before removing memory */
>  	remove_memory_block_devices(start, size);
>  
>  	arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL);
> +	memblock_free(start, size);
> +	memblock_remove(start, size);
>  	__release_memory_resource(start, size);
>  
>  	try_offline_node(nid);
> 

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ