| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120222134707.GA9769@alberich.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:47:07 +0100
From: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
To: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:05:21AM +0000, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On 21/02/2012 10:27, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:17:05PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
[snip]
> > 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?
>
> The check and fixup wasn't needed in the Intel path thus far, so wasn't
> added.
>
> We could specialise the 'if (c->phys_proc_id != node)' test to check for
> x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id being NULL and drop the default override, if
> that is preferred?
It seems that all the stuff in x86_init.[ch] is using default/noop
functions instead of NULL pointer checks. So we shouldn't deviate from
this for x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id.
I think attached patch is more suitable to avoid the wrong warning
message.
Please review.
Thanks,
Andreas
--
x86: Remove wrong error message in x86_default_fixup_cpu_id
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. Thus there are cores having different
numa-node-id but with equal phys_proc_id.
There is no point to print error messages in such a situation.
The confusing/misleading error message was introduced with commit
64be4c1c2428e148de6081af235e2418e6a66dda (x86: Add x86_init platform
override to fix up NUMA core numbering).
Change the default fixup function (remove the error message), move the
Numascale-specific condition for calling the fixup into the
fixup-function itself and slightly adapt the comment.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c | 7 +++++--
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 8 ++++----
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 9 ---------
arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c | 1 +
5 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
index 517d476..1bcacef 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
@@ -189,6 +189,6 @@ extern struct x86_msi_ops x86_msi;
extern void x86_init_noop(void);
extern void x86_init_uint_noop(unsigned int unused);
-extern void x86_default_fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node);
+extern void x86_default_fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int n);
#endif
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
index 09d3d8c..ade0182 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
@@ -201,8 +201,11 @@ static void __init map_csrs(void)
static void fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node)
{
- c->phys_proc_id = node;
- per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, smp_processor_id()) = node;
+
+ if (c->phys_proc_id != node) {
+ c->phys_proc_id = node;
+ per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, smp_processor_id()) = node;
+ }
}
static int __init numachip_system_init(void)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
index f4773f4..52b7287 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
@@ -352,11 +352,11 @@ static void __cpuinit srat_detect_node(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
node = per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, cpu);
/*
- * If core numbers are inconsistent, it's likely a multi-fabric platform,
- * so invoke platform-specific handler
+ * On multi-fabric platform (e.g. Numascale NumaChip) a
+ * platform-specific handler needs to be called to fixup some
+ * IDs of the CPU.
*/
- if (c->phys_proc_id != node)
- x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id(c, node);
+ x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id(c, node);
if (!node_online(node)) {
/*
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index d43cad7..37da7a6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -1158,15 +1158,6 @@ static void dbg_restore_debug_regs(void)
#endif /* ! CONFIG_KGDB */
/*
- * Prints an error where the NUMA and configured core-number mismatch and the
- * platform didn't override this to fix it up
- */
-void __cpuinit x86_default_fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node)
-{
- pr_err("NUMA core number %d differs from configured core number %d\n", node, c->phys_proc_id);
-}
-
-/*
* cpu_init() initializes state that is per-CPU. Some data is already
* initialized (naturally) in the bootstrap process, such as the GDT
* and IDT. We reload them nevertheless, this function acts as a
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c b/arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c
index 947a06c..67cf78a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c
@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ struct x86_init_ops x86_init __initdata = {
},
};
+void __cpuinit x86_default_fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int n) { }
struct x86_cpuinit_ops x86_cpuinit __cpuinitdata = {
.setup_percpu_clockev = setup_secondary_APIC_clock,
.fixup_cpu_id = x86_default_fixup_cpu_id,
--
1.7.8.4
--
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