linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix try_offline

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: <20191107195845.b0b3921ea146a60d042a8f64@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:58:45 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix try_offline_node()

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 00:14:13 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:

> > +	/*
> > +	 * Especially offline memory blocks might not be spanned by the
> > +	 * node. They will get spanned by the node once they get onlined.
> > +	 * However, they link to the node in sysfs and can get onlined later.
> > +	 */
> > +	rc = for_each_memory_block(&nid, check_no_memblock_for_node_cb);
> > +	if (rc)
> >   		return;
> > -	}
> >   
> >   	if (check_cpu_on_node(pgdat))
> >   		return;
> > 
> 
> @Andrew, can you queued this one instead of v1 so we can give this some 
> more testing? Thanks!

Sure.

We have a tested-by but no reviewed-by or acked-by :(

Null pointer derefs are unpopular.  Should we cc:stable?