[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A89409B.8020103@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:35:55 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mce: Don't initialize MCEs on unknown CPUs
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> btw., i found the bug - it's due to:
>
> # CONFIG_CPU_SUP_INTEL is not set
Ah, thanks for debugging. Very tricky and nasty. Perhaps these options are more trouble
than what they save in code.
> static void __cpuinit mce_ancient_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> @@ -1342,11 +1352,10 @@ void __cpuinit mcheck_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> if (!mce_available(c))
> return;
>
> - if (mce_cap_init() < 0) {
> + if (mce_cap_init() < 0 || mce_cpu_quirks(c) < 0) {
> mce_disabled = 1;
> return;
> }
> - mce_cpu_quirks(c);
I'm very pedantic here and it's more a theoretical problem, but mce_cap_init() allocates
memory which you leak and this could rerun on each CPU hotplug. So if you have a unknown CPU and do
a lot of CPU hotadds in a loop then you would eventually fill all memory.
Better kfree() the bank arrays.
-Andi
--
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