linux-kernel - [PATCH v1 2/4] virtio-mem: convert most offline_and_remove

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: <20230713145551.2824980-3-david@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:55:49 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 2/4] virtio-mem: convert most offline_and_remove_memory() errors to -EBUSY

Just like we do with alloc_contig_range(), let's convert all unknown
errors to -EBUSY, but WARN so we can look into the issue. For example,
offline_pages() could fail with -EINTR, which would be unexpected in our
case.

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
---
 drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
index ed15d2a4bd96..1a76ba2bc118 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
@@ -741,11 +741,15 @@ static int virtio_mem_offline_and_remove_memory(struct virtio_mem *vm,
 		 * immediately instead of waiting.
 		 */
 		virtio_mem_retry(vm);
-	} else {
-		dev_dbg(&vm->vdev->dev,
-			"offlining and removing memory failed: %d\n", rc);
+		return 0;
 	}
-	return rc;
+	dev_dbg(&vm->vdev->dev, "offlining and removing memory failed: %d\n", rc);
+	/*
+	 * We don't really expect this to fail, because we fake-offlined all
+	 * memory already. But it could fail in corner cases.
+	 */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(rc != -ENOMEM && rc != -EBUSY);
+	return rc == -ENOMEM ? -ENOMEM : -EBUSY;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.41.0