| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:42 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, cpu hotplug: move try_offline_node() after acpi_unmap_lsapic() On Friday, August 09, 2013 08:11:19 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > On Sat, 2013-08-10 at 01:29 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, August 09, 2013 04:16:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 15:28 +0800, Tang Chen wrote: > > > > On 08/07/2013 12:56 AM, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 19:11 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > > > > >> try_offline_node() checks that all cpus related with removed node have been > > > > >> removed by using cpu_present_bits. If all cpus related with removed node have > > > > >> been removed, try_offline_node() clears the node information. > > > > >> > > > > >> But try_offline_node() called from acpi_processor_remove() never clears > > > > >> the node information. For disabling cpu_present_bits, acpi_unmap_lsapic() > > > > >> need be called. But acpi_unmap_lsapic() is called after try_offline_node() > > > > >> runs. So when try_offline_node() runs, the cpu's cpu_present_bits is always > > > > >> set. > > > > >> > > > > >> This patch moves try_offline_node() after acpi_unmap_lsapic(). > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu<isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com> > > > > > > > > > > The change looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani<toshi.kani@...com> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you know why try_offline_node() has to use stop_machine()? > > > > > > > > try_offline_node() is used to check if the node could be hot-removed > > > > after each memory or cpu hot-remove operation. > > > > > > > > In memory hot-remove path, we have lock_memory_hotplug() to series all > > > > the memory hot-remove options. > > > > > > > > But when doing cpu hot-remove, > > > > > > > > acpi_processor_remove() > > > > |->try_offline_node() > > > > > > > > There is no lock to protect it. I think, when we are going to hot-remove > > > > a node, others should not do any memory or cpu hotplug operation. In memory > > > > hotplug path, we have lock_memory_hotplug(). But in cpu hotplug path, I > > > > didn't find any lock. So we used stop_machine() to call check_cpu_on_node(). > > > > If we find any cpu still present, we return and do not remove the node. > > > > > > CPU/Memory hotplug operations and sysfs eject are serialized with > > > acpi_os_hotplug_execute(). CPU online/offline is protected by > > > cpu_hotplug_[begin|done]() and [get|put]_online_cpus(). But, yes, > > > online/offline and hotplug operations are not serialized. I tried to > > > serialize them before, but that framework was not well received. > > > > What about lock_device_hotplug()? It is taken by both online/offline and > > the ACPI hotplug code, isn't it? > > Oh, that's right! I forgot about this one. Yes, lock_device_hotplug() > nicely protects online/offline and hotplug operations. :-) > > > > Anyway, it looks to me that cpu_up()->mem_online_node() path can race > > > with try_offline_node(). > > > > It can in principle, but I'm not sure if there's a way to trigger that > > race. Do you have an example? > > With lock_device_hotplug(), I agree that we do not have this race > condition -- cpu_up() may not run while other hotplug is running. > store_online() will be blocked at lock_device_hotplug() in such case. > When store_online() acquired the lock, this CPU may have been deleted. > So, we still need to make sure that this case is handled properly. Yes. > I suppose sysfs keeps *dev valid with ref_count (Is that right?). Yes, it does. > I think cpu_up() needs to check with cpu_present(), not cpu_possible(), at > the top. Otherwise, cpu_to_node(cpu) may return NUMA_NO_NODE (-1), which is > probably not a good value for node_online(nid). We do cpu_to_node(cpuid) in cpu_subsys_online() before that, so maybe it's better to check the result already there and bail out if that's negative? Something like the patch below. Thanks, Rafael --- drivers/base/cpu.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/cpu.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/cpu.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/cpu.c @@ -43,11 +43,14 @@ static int __ref cpu_subsys_online(struc struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev); int cpuid = dev->id; int from_nid, to_nid; - int ret; + int ret = -ENODEV; cpu_hotplug_driver_lock(); from_nid = cpu_to_node(cpuid); + if (from_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) + goto out; + ret = cpu_up(cpuid); /* * When hot adding memory to memoryless node and enabling a cpu @@ -57,6 +60,7 @@ static int __ref cpu_subsys_online(struc if (from_nid != to_nid) change_cpu_under_node(cpu, from_nid, to_nid); + out: cpu_hotplug_driver_unlock(); return ret; } -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists