linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] x86/numa: Provide a range-to-target

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gDnbTss7cAph4vyiO2R5cJeACOReTgzafoT6iHxsR6Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:40:12 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] x86/numa: Provide a range-to-target_node lookup facility

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:38 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> > +/**
> > + * numa_move_memblk - Move one numa_memblk from one numa_meminfo to another
> > + * @dst: numa_meminfo to move block to
> > + * @idx: Index of memblk to remove
> > + * @src: numa_meminfo to remove memblk from
> > + *
> > + * If @dst is non-NULL add it at the @dst->nr_blks index and increment
> > + * @dst->nr_blks, then remove it from @src.
>
> This is not correct. It's suggesting that these operations are only
> happening when @dst is non-NULL. Remove is unconditional though.
>
> Also this is called with &numa_reserved_meminfo as @dst argument, which is:
>
> > +static struct numa_meminfo numa_reserved_meminfo __initdata_numa;
>
> So how would @dst ever be NULL?

Ugh, something I should have caught. An earlier version of this patch
optionally defined numa_reserved_meminfo [1], but I later switched to
the current / cleaner __initdata_or_meminfo scheme. Will clean this
up.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/157309907296.1582359.7986676987778026949.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/