linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc

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: <7D1564FA-5AC6-47F3-BC5A-A11716CD40F2@vmware.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 19:01:03 +0000
From:   Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC:     Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages



> On Dec 9, 2021, at 5:29 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu 09-12-21 10:23:52, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 9, 2021, at 1:56 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu 09-12-21 09:28:55, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [    0.081777] Node 4 uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg.
>>>> [    0.081790] Initmem setup node 4 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000000]
>>>> ...
>>>> [    0.086441] Node 127 uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg.
>>>> [    0.086454] Initmem setup node 127 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000000]
>>> 
>>> Interesting that only those two didn't get a proper arch specific
>>> initialization. Could you check why? I assume init_cpu_to_node
>>> doesn't see any CPU pointing at this node. Wondering why that would be
>>> the case but that can be a bug in the affinity tables.
>> 
>> My bad shrinking. Not just these 2, but all possible and not present nodes from 4 to 127
>> are having this message.
> 
> Does that mean that your possible (but offline) cpus do not set their
> affinity?
> 
Hi Michal,

I didn’t quite gut a question here. Do you mean scheduler affinity for offlined/not present CPUs?
From the patch, this message should be printed for every possible offlined node:
	for_each_node(nid) {
...
		if (!node_online(nid)) {
			pr_warn("Node %d uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg.\n", nid);

Thanks,
—Alexey



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)