| 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: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:22:59 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, bp@...en8.de,
indou.takao@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/13] x86/apic: Construct a selector for the
interrupt delivery mode
On 09/07/17 at 12:19pm, Dou Liyang wrote:
> Hi Baoquan
>
> I am wordy one ah:
> our target is checking if BIOS supports APIC, no matter what
> type(separated/integrated) it is. if not, go to PIC mode.
>
> Let‘s discuss the original logic and the smp_found_config,
> then take about your code.
>
> The existing logic is:
>
> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) && !smp_found_config) ...(1)
> return -1;
>
> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) &&
> APIC_INTEGRATED(boot_cpu_apic_version)) { ...(2)
> pr_err(....);
>
> why smp_found_config has to be checked in (1)?
>
> Because, In case of discrete (pretty old) apics we may not set
> X86_FEATURE_APIC bit in cpuid, with 82489DX we can't rely on apic
> feature bit retrieved via cpuid(boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)).[1]
> So we assume that if SMP configuration is found from MP table
> (smp_found_config = 1) in above case, there maybe a separated
> chip in our pc.
>
> After passing the check of (1), we in (2), check whether local APIC
> is detected or not, If we have a BIOS bug.
>
> [1] Commit 8312136fa8b0("x86, apic: Fix missed handling of discrete apics")
Hmm, sounds reasonable. Just a sentence to describe it could be better.
>
> At 09/06/2017 06:17 PM, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi Dou,
> >
> > On 08/28/17 at 11:20am, Dou Liyang wrote:
> > > +static int __init apic_intr_mode_select(void)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Check kernel option */
> > > + if (disable_apic) {
> > > + pr_info("APIC disabled via kernel command line\n");
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I am not very familiar with cpu registers, not sure if we can adjust
> > below code flow as:
> >
> > /* If APIC is integrated, check local APIC only */
> > if (lapic_is_integrated() && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)) {
> > disable_apic = 1;
> > pr_info("APIC disabled by BIOS\n");
> > return APIC_PIC;
> > }
> >
> > /* If APIC is on a separate chip, check if smp_found_config is found*/
> > if (!lapic_is_integrated() && !smp_found_config) {
> > disable_apic = 1;
> > return APIC_PIC;
> > }
>
> Yes, Awesome, we first consider it from APIC register space, then
> the BOIS and software configration. let me do more investigation.
>
> I rewrite it based on you, any comments will welcome.
>
> /* If APIC is not integrated, check if SMP configuration is
> * found from MP table. If not too, no 82489DX. switch to
> * PIC mode
> *
> * Else APIC is integrated, check if the BIOS allows local APIC
> *
> */
> if (!lapic_is_integrated()) {
> if (!smp_found_config) {
> disable_apic = 1;
> return APIC_PIC;
> }
> } else if(!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)) {
> disable_apic = 1;
> pr_info("APIC disabled by BIOS\n");
> return APIC_PIC;
> }
> }
Yeah, it's fine to me. At least the logic looks more understandable.
>
> BTW, As the macro APIC_INTEGRATED(x) has already wrapped by
> CONFIG_X86_32, I will cleanup the lapic_is_integrated() for readablity
> like that:
Yes, looks good. There's duplicate judgement of X86_64 in
lapic_is_integrated.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> index 7834f73..63b3ae9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> @@ -211,11 +211,7 @@ static inline int lapic_get_version(void)
> */
> static inline int lapic_is_integrated(void)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - return 1;
> -#else
> return APIC_INTEGRATED(lapic_get_version());
> -#endif
> }
>
>
> Do you think so. ;-)
>
>
> Thanks,
> dou.
>
>
> > ~~~~ Now, I haven't think of why smp_found_config has to be
> > checked here.
> >
> > In this way, we don't need the CONFIG_X86_64 checking since it's
> > contained in lapic_is_integrated() already. And the checking is obvious
> > for understanding. Just not very sure if the checking is adequate.
> >
> > Just my personal opinion.
> >
> > > + /* Check BIOS */
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > + /* On 64-bit, the APIC must be integrated, Check local APIC only */
> > > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)) {
> > > + disable_apic = 1;
> > > + pr_info("APIC disabled by BIOS\n");
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +#else
> > > + /*
> > > + * On 32-bit, check whether there is a separate chip or integrated
> > > + * APIC
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + /* Has a separate chip ? */
> > > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) && !smp_found_config) {
> > > + disable_apic = 1;
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Has a local APIC ? */
> > > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) &&
> > > + APIC_INTEGRATED(boot_cpu_apic_version)) {
> > > + disable_apic = 1;
> > > + pr_err(FW_BUG "Local APIC %d not detected, force emulation\n",
> > > + boot_cpu_physical_apicid);
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > + /* Check MP table or ACPI MADT configuration */
> > > + if (!smp_found_config) {
> > > + disable_ioapic_support();
> > > +
> > > + if (!acpi_lapic)
> > > + pr_info("APIC: ACPI MADT or MP tables are not detected\n");
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_VIRTUAL_WIRE;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_SYMMETRIC_IO;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * An initial setup of the virtual wire mode.
> > > */
> > > --
> > > 2.5.5
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists