linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] arm: do not skip SMP init calls on SMP_ON

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:	Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:13:29 +0300
From:	Nikita Yushchenko <nyushchenko@....rtsoft.ru>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	kuznetsovg@....rtsoft.ru,
	Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Paul Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@...panasonic.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] arm: do not skip SMP init calls on SMP_ON_UP case

>> Not sure I understand logic behind this. With the current code,
>> resulting cpu_possible_mask depends on CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP:
>> - if it is set, cpu_possible_mask contains (0 1), as initialized in
>> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps()
>> - if it is not set, cpu_possible_mask contains (0), since
>> imx_smp_init_cpus() removes 1 from there.
> 
> Right, adding debug to arch/arm/kernel/setup.c, just before the
> "if (is_smp())" shows:
> 
> is_smp() 0 possible 3 present 1 online 1
> 
> which is totally wrong: if is_smp() is false, we should not be setting
> up any possible CPUs.  See a patch below to fix that.
> 
> However, this doesn't matter much, because the code in setup.c won't
> initialise the SMP operations struct ...

But cpu start code is not the only place in the kernel that uses cpu_present_mask.

Are you sure that running with invalid cpu_present_mask has no side effects?

> Here's the patch to fix the DT code, which should not be setting
> present CPUs when is_smp() is false.

I see that this fixes the issue as well.

But I still don't understand rationale behind all these is_smp() checks.
This makes init sequence different with and without CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP.
Isn't kernel intended to run ok without CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP?

And if yes - then why not run the same init sequence in both cases?
--
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/