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: <YbIEqflrP/vxIsXZ@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:29:13 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.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 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?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs