linux-kernel - Re: [Next] CPU Hotplug test failures on powerpc

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, 16 Dec 2009 13:54:53 +0530
From:	Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>
To:	Xiaotian Feng <xtfeng@...il.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [Next] CPU Hotplug test failures on powerpc

Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> Could follow be possible?  We know there's cpu 0 and cpu 1,
>
> offline cpu1 > done
> offline cpu0 > false
>
> consider this in cpu_down code,
>
>
> int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> <snip>
>         set_cpu_active(cpu, false); // here, we set cpu 0 to inactive
>
>         synchronize_sched();
>
>         err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
> out:
> <snip>
> }
>
> Then in _cpu_down code:
>
> static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
> {
> <snip>
>         if (num_online_cpus() == 1)        // if we're trying to
> offline cpu0, num_online_cpus will be 1
>                 return -EBUSY;                    // after return back
> to cpu_down, we didn't change cpu 0 back to active
>
>         if (!cpu_online(cpu))
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
>         if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_allowed, GFP_KERNEL))
>                 return -ENOMEM;
> <snip>
> }
>
> Then cpu 0 is not active, but online, then we try to offline cpu1, .......
> This can not be exposed because x86 does not have
> /sys/devices/system/cpu0/online.
> I guess following patch fixes this bug.
>   
Just tested this one on the POWER box and the test passed.
I did not observe the hang.

Thanks
-Sachin

> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 291ac58..21ddace 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -199,14 +199,18 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int
> tasks_frozen)
>                 .hcpu = hcpu,
>         };
>
> -       if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> +       if (num_online_cpus() == 1) {
> +               set_cpu_active(cpu, true);
>                 return -EBUSY;
> +       }
>
>         if (!cpu_online(cpu))
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
> -       if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_allowed, GFP_KERNEL))
> +       if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_allowed, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> +               set_cpu_active(cpu, true);
>                 return -ENOMEM;
> +       }
>
>         cpu_hotplug_begin();
>         err = __raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DOWN_PREPARE | mod,
>
>
>   
>> Unless of course, I messed up, which appears to be rather likely given
>> these problems ;-)
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 

---------------------------------
Sachin Sant
IBM Linux Technology Center
India Systems and Technology Labs
Bangalore, India
---------------------------------

--
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/