linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH] move_pages.2: Returning positive value is a new error case

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: <6f9642ee-5611-4eea-b904-c09cc02b0b17@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:27:11 -0800
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] move_pages.2: Returning positive value is a new error
 case



On 1/30/20 5:48 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 30-01-20 13:56:20, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 1/30/20 1:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 30-01-20 10:06:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/20 10:48 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> Since commit a49bd4d71637 ("mm, numa: rework do_pages_move"),
>>>>> the semantic of move_pages() has changed to return the number of
>>>>> non-migrated pages if they were result of a non-fatal reasons (usually a
>>>>> busy page).  This was an unintentional change that hasn't been noticed
>>>>> except for LTP tests which checked for the documented behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two ways to go around this change.  We can even get back to the
>>>>> original behavior and return -EAGAIN whenever migrate_pages is not able
>>>> The manpage says EBUSY, not EAGAIN? And should its description be
>>>> updated too?
>>> The idea was that we _could_ return EAGAIN from the syscall if
>>> migrate_pages > 0.
>>>
>>>> I.e. that it's no longer returned since 4.17?
>>> I am pretty sure this will require a deeper consideration. Do we return
>>> EIO/EINVAL?
>> I thought the manpage says we return -EBUSY, but I misread it, this part
>> was not about errno, but the status array. So there's nothing to update
>> there, sorry about the noise.
>>
>> BTW, the suggestion to "Pre-initialization of the array to -1" means
>> effectively it's pre-initialized to -EPERM. That's fine now as -EPERM is
>> not one of the codes listed as possible to be returned via the array,
>> but perhaps it's not entirely future-proof?
> Hmm, I didn't realize EPERM is refering to 1. The wording however
> suggests also any other value that cannot represent a valid NUMA node.
> So maybe we should just drop the node about -1.

Or maybe we just say "any value which doesn't represent a valid NUMA 
node or valid error of status array"?