linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, apic: Do not increment disabled_cpus from generic_processor

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTik=bg0KY8Oygxem+SdEaPHwBtHRHOcz29HSReHH@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:57:01 +0600
From:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, apic: Do not increment disabled_cpus from generic_processor_info.

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> Hm, what effects does this have in practice? smpboot.c uses disabled_cpus as a value
> to calculate limits - why has this bug not caused some misbehavior somewhere? (or if
> it has caused misbehavior, what is that?)

If I'm not wrong, smpboot.c tries to get the possible cpu map by
calculating disabled_cpus and num_processors. When we pass nr_cpus=n,
which is less than no. of CPUs available, we can't put more CPUs
online. So, no of cpu we detect at startup is okay. Or am I missing
anything?

thanks,
rakib

>
> Thanks,
>
>        Ingo
>
--
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/