linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Resurect proper handling of maxcpus= kernel option

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

Message-ID: <48A08920.5040208@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:46:56 -0700
From:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
	Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resurect proper handling of maxcpus= kernel option



Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> This will need some test time on 32-bit as that is where this 
>>> represents a material change. ( albeit what matters most is the 
>>> maxcpus=1 distinction - and for that nosmp can be used as well to 
>>> turn off multi-cpu support altogether. So we could do this in 
>>> v2.6.27 as well. )
>> So far we got a couple of reports that it works as expected on 32 
>> (both laptop and server/desktop).
> 
> Yes, but the usecase i'm worried about is when say maxcpus=1 was used to 
> _prevent_ an SMP bootup - because the system would not work otherwise.
> 
> i guess we want to tickle those systems anyway as that case is not 
> supposed to happen (and it can always be totally disabled via nosmp or 
> noapic).
> 
> So i'm not against your fix/change per se, i just wanted to highlight 
> that it has some impact on existing uses of maxcpus that is outside of 
> your cpu-hotplug usecase.

I see what you mean. I think it's fairly safe though since we do not actually
do much for the cpus that are not going to be brought online. Mainly just
setting cpu_*_map and initializing per cpu areas. If something is broken in
there we'd probably want to fix that asap anyway. And like you said nosmp does
the job too.

Max
--
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/