[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ee3e5opu.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 13:14:05 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <shy828301@...il.com>,
<willy@...radead.org>, <ziy@...dia.com>, <minchan@...nel.org>,
<apopple@...dia.com>, <ave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
<o451686892@...il.com>, <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
<jhubbard@...dia.com>, <rcampbell@...dia.com>, <peterx@...hat.com>,
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>, <mhocko@...e.com>, <riel@...hat.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] mm/migration: fix potential invalid node access
for reclaim-based migration
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
> On 3/4/2022 5:34 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> If we failed to setup hotplug state callbacks for mm/demotion:online in
>> some corner cases, node_demotion will be left uninitialized. Invalid node
>> might be returned from the next_demotion_node() when doing reclaim-based
>> migration. Use kcalloc to allocate node_demotion to fix the issue.
>> Fixes: ac16ec835314 ("mm: migrate: support multiple target nodes
>> demotion")
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> mm/migrate.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>> index 279940c0c064..7b1c0b988234 100644
>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>> @@ -2516,9 +2516,9 @@ static int __init migrate_on_reclaim_init(void)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> - node_demotion = kmalloc_array(nr_node_ids,
>> - sizeof(struct demotion_nodes),
>> - GFP_KERNEL);
>> + node_demotion = kcalloc(nr_node_ids,
>> + sizeof(struct demotion_nodes),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Nit: not sure if this is worthy of this rare corner case, but I think
> the target demotion nodes' default value should be NUMA_NO_NODE
> instead of 0.
The "nr" field of "struct demotion_nodes" should be initialized as 0. I
think that is checked before "nodes[]" field.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists