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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E2EAC147-4F23-4B12-9C80-42FE28F03D26@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:12:16 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 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()



> Am 16.11.2019 um 01:08 schrieb Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>:
> 
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:58:45 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> <Crickets>
> 
> I added cc:stable and shall send it upstream unreviewed.

Yes, please cc:stable at as mentioned in the patch comments (below the description). Maybe we‘ll find somebody last minute to review ... thanks!

>