linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove wrong error message in x86_default_fixup_cpu

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: <20120221102725.GC14274@aftab>
Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:27:25 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove wrong error message in
 x86_default_fixup_cpu_id

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:17:05PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> 
> It's only called from amd.c:srat_detect_node(). The introduced
> condition for calling the fixup code is true for all AMD multi-node
> processors, e.g. Magny-Cours and Interlagos. There we have 2 NUMA
> nodes on one socket. And thus there are cores having different
> numa-node-id but with equal phys_proc_id. For example on such a system
> we now get
> 
> [    0.228109] Booting Node   0, Processors  #1
> [    0.232337] smpboot cpu 1: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.252088]  #2
> [    0.253746] smpboot cpu 2: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.272086]  #3
> [    0.276018] smpboot cpu 3: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.296088]  #4
> [    0.297745] smpboot cpu 4: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.316088]  #5
> [    0.320021] smpboot cpu 5: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.340113]  Ok.
> [    0.342324] Booting Node   1, Processors  #6
> [    0.344344] smpboot cpu 6: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0
> [    0.372110]  #7
> [    0.373771] smpboot cpu 7: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0
> [    0.396104]  #8
> [    0.397764] smpboot cpu 8: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0
> [    0.420109]  #9
> [    0.421773] smpboot cpu 9: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0
> [    0.444113]  #10
> [    0.445865] smpboot cpu 10: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0
> [    0.468111]  #11
> [    0.472030] smpboot cpu 11: start_ip = 83000
> [    0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0
> 
> These NUMA core numbering error messages are plain wrong.
> 
> The confusing/misleading error message was introduced with commit
> 64be4c1c2428e148de6081af235e2418e6a66dda (x86: Add x86_init platform
> override to fix up NUMA core numbering) and should be removed.
> 
> Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c |    1 -
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> BTW, I wonder why the fixup code isn't called from the Intel path.  At
> least the mentioned patch suggests that something more generic was
> introduced here.

Right, and I would remove the check in amd.c:srat_detect_node() instead
of removing the printk statement in the default implementation.

IOW, we need more info on why the check was added only to the AMD path?
Daniel?

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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/