linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: [PATCH] drivers/acpi/numa.c: Add localities checking code against proximity domains to slit

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:38:08 -0700
From:	Kurt Garloff <kurt@...loff.de>
To:	ethan zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com>, len.brown@...el.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] drivers/acpi/numa.c: Add localities checking code against proximity domains to slit_valid()

Ethan,





ethan zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com> schrieb:

> Some buggy BIOS/ACPI will set different number to SLIT localities and
> SRAT proximity domains,
>  That will make NUMA configuration invalid and kernel will output
> information like following
> 
> NUMA:Warning:invalid distance parameter, from=-1 to=-1 distance=83
> 
> This patch adds some checking code to slit_valid() function in order
> to check the SLIT localities
> count against SRAT proximity domains number and give clear information
> about ACPI bug.
> 
> Signed-off-by: ethan.zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/numa.c |    7 +++++++
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> index e56f3be..55c8a8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> @@ -161,6 +161,13 @@ static __init int slit_valid(struct
> acpi_table_slit
> *slit)
>  {
>         int i, j;
>         int d = slit->locality_count;
> +       int pxd = nodes_weight(nodes_found_map);
> +       if (pxd != d) {
> +               printk(KERN_INFO "ACPI: BIOS bug! SLIT localities
> count %d
> doesn't equal SRAT proximity domains number %d\n",
> +                       d , pxd);
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
>         for (i = 0; i < d; i++) {
>                 for (j = 0; j < d; j++)  {
>                         u8 val = slit->entry[d*i + j];
> --
> 1.7.1

Patch looks good to me. When I first saw it I was wondering whether that should be controlled via some quirk entry. But probably it can't trigger if everything is correct so that it's probably unneeded complexity. Someone with more intimate knowledge of ACPI should confirm  that and this should be good to go.


Cheers, 

-- 
Kurt Garloff <Kurt@...loff.de>  [Köln/ Greven]
(Sent from Android phone with K-9 Mail.)
--
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/