linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, acpi: Handle all SRAT cpu entries even have cpu num limitation

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:	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:53:55 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	"Zheng, Shaohui" <shaohui.zheng@...el.com>,
	"linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>,
	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, acpi: Handle all SRAT cpu entries even have cpu
 num limitation

On 12/15/2010 02:40 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 02:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/13/2010 05:38 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
>>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
>>> @@ -198,6 +198,13 @@ static void __cpuinit acpi_register_lapi
>>>  {
>>>  	unsigned int ver = 0;
>>>  
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>> +	if (id >= (MAX_APICS-1)) {
>>> +		printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "skipped apicid that is too big\n");
>>> +		return;
>>> +	}
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>>  	if (!enabled) {
>>>  		++disabled_cpus;
>>>  		return;
>>
>> Why the #ifdef?
> 
> try to limit the affects to 32bit's bunch sub arch etc.
> 

I really, really don't like that... we want more unification, not less...

	-hpa
--
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/