linux-kernel - Re: PCI MSI breaks when booting with nosmp

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]

Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:32:39 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Tom Long Nguyen <tom.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: PCI MSI breaks when booting with nosmp

Le mercredi 23 avril 2008, Jesse Barnes a écrit :
> On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:13 am Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > Yeah I think the patch is reasonable, would be good to get feedback from
> > > Thomas/Andi/Ingo though...
> >
> >  FWIW, the original idea behind "nosmp" or "maxcpus=0" (just as an
> > implementation detail) vs "maxcpus=1" was that the two formers would
> > disable the APIC circuitry altogether (including resisting from switching
> > from the PIC compatibility mode on systems supporting it), while the
> > latter would still boot UP, but with interrupts routed through the APICs.
> > Essentially SMP implied all the MP circuitry/provisions in this context,
> > the APICs being an inherent part of which.  Therefore I think the original
> > idea of implying "pci=nomsi" with "nosmp" certainly looks more in the
> > spirit of the original setup to me.
> >
> >  However we have "nolapic" these days as well and with this new proposal
> > this option could effectively take over the old meaning of "nosmp" (you
> > cannot do SMP without the local APIC, so "nolapic nosmp" is redundant).
> > I am not entirely convinced it is the right way though...
> 
> Yeah, I'm not particularly attached to either meaning.  It looks like we'll 
> setup the local apic on 32 bit if the NMI vector is a local apic one, so in 
> that case at least the behavior will be the same.
> 
> Anyway, we have two options:
>   1) make nosmp/maxcpus=1 imply nolapic (and therefore disable MSI too)
>   2) make nosmp enable the lapic (so MSI will work)

No opinion. As long as I can boot with "nosmp" and things work, I'm
happy.

-- 
Jean Delvare
Suse L3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/