* Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-20 09:43:11]:
> On 3/20/20 8:46 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 15:10:19]:
> >
> >> On 3/19/20 3:05 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> > * Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 14:47:58]:
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, but AFAICS, such node values are
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 09:37:18AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/20/20 4:42 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 02:47:58PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >> +++
On 3/20/20 8:46 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 15:10:19]:
>
>> On 3/19/20 3:05 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> > * Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 14:47:58]:
>> >
>>
>> No, but AFAICS, such node values are already handled in ___slab_alloc, and
>> cannot reach
On 3/20/20 4:42 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 02:47:58PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -1973,8 +1973,6 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s,
* Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 15:10:19]:
> On 3/19/20 3:05 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 14:47:58]:
> >
> >> 8<
> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >> @@
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 02:47:58PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1973,8 +1973,6 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t
> flags, int node,
>
> if (node
>>> Great, thanks! Can I add your Tested-by: then?
>>
>> Sure.
>> Tested-by: Sachin Sant
>>
>> Thank you for the fix.
>
> Thanks! Sorry to bother, but in the end I decided to do further change so I
> would appreciate verification if it still works as intended.
Works as expected. I am able to
On 3/19/20 3:05 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 14:47:58]:
>
>> 8<
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -1973,8 +1973,6 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s,
* Vlastimil Babka [2020-03-19 14:47:58]:
> 8<
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1973,8 +1973,6 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t
> flags, int node,
>
> if (node ==
On 3/19/20 2:26 PM, Sachin Sant wrote:
>
>
>> On 19-Mar-2020, at 6:53 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>> On 3/19/20 9:52 AM, Sachin Sant wrote:
>>>
OK how about this version? It's somewhat ugly, but important is that the
fast
path case (c->page exists) is unaffected and another
> On 19-Mar-2020, at 6:53 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 3/19/20 9:52 AM, Sachin Sant wrote:
>>
>>> OK how about this version? It's somewhat ugly, but important is that the
>>> fast
>>> path case (c->page exists) is unaffected and another common case (c->page is
>>> NULL, but node is
On 3/19/20 9:52 AM, Sachin Sant wrote:
>
>> OK how about this version? It's somewhat ugly, but important is that the fast
>> path case (c->page exists) is unaffected and another common case (c->page is
>> NULL, but node is NUMA_NO_NODE) is just one extra check - impossible to
>> avoid at
>> some
> OK how about this version? It's somewhat ugly, but important is that the fast
> path case (c->page exists) is unaffected and another common case (c->page is
> NULL, but node is NUMA_NO_NODE) is just one extra check - impossible to avoid
> at
> some point anyway.
>
I attempted the suggested
ra check - impossible to avoid at
some point anyway.
----8<----
>From d1675363c2ddc3758e5c0d0f435ca46818219194 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlastimil Babka
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:47:33 +0100
Subject: [RFC 1/2] mm, slub: prevent kmalloc_node crashes and memory leaks
Sachin reports [1] a
On 3/18/20 5:06 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 03:42:19PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> This is a PowerPC platform with following NUMA topology:
>>
>> available: 2 nodes (0-1)
>> node 0 cpus:
>> node 0 size: 0 MB
>> node 0 free: 0 MB
>> node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 03:42:19PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> This is a PowerPC platform with following NUMA topology:
>
> available: 2 nodes (0-1)
> node 0 cpus:
> node 0 size: 0 MB
> node 0 free: 0 MB
> node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
> 25 26
Sachin reports [1] a crash in SLUB __slab_alloc():
BUG: Kernel NULL pointer dereference on read at 0x73b0
Faulting instruction address: 0xc03d55f4
Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
LE PAGE_SIZE=64K MMU=Hash SMP NR_CPUS=2048 NUMA pSeries
Modules linked in:
CPU: 19 PID: 1
17 matches
Mail list logo
