linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 12/16] x86, irq, ACPI: Implement interface to support ACPI based IOAPIC hot-addition

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: <54113BAC.10505@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:05:32 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	x86@...nel.org, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 12/16] x86, irq, ACPI: Implement interface to support
 ACPI based IOAPIC hot-addition

On 2014/9/11 4:06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>>  int mp_register_ioapic(int id, u32 address, u32 gsi_base,
>>>> @@ -3867,8 +3873,15 @@ int mp_register_ioapic(int id, u32 address, u32 gsi_base,
>>>>  	}
>>>>  	for_each_ioapic(ioapic)
>>>>  		if (ioapics[ioapic].mp_config.apicaddr == address) {
>>>> -			pr_warn("address 0x%x conflicts with IOAPIC%d\n",
>>>> -				address, ioapic);
>>>> +			/*
>>>> +			 * IOAPIC unit may also be visible in PCI scope.
>>>> +			 * When ioapic PCI driver's probe() is called,
>>>> +			 * the IOAPIC unit may have already been initialized
>>>> +			 * at boot time.
>>>> +			 */
>>>> +			if (!ioapic_initialized)
>>>> +				pr_warn("address 0x%x conflicts with IOAPIC%d\n",
>>>> +					address, ioapic);
>>>
>>> Hmm. This smells fishy. Why do we allow multiple initializations of
>>> the same IOAPIC in the first place. Either it's done via ACPI or via
>>> PCI, but not both.
>> The ACPI subsystem will register and initialize all IOAPICs when walking
>> ACPI MADT table during boot, before initializing PCI subsystem.
>> Later when binding ioapic PCI driver to IOAPIC PCI device, it will try
>> to register the IOAPIC device again.
>>
>> After this patchset is applied, we could remove the !ioapic_initialized
>> check. We check acpi_ioapic_register() before calling
>> acpi_register_ioapic(). So the check becomes redundant.
>> Or we could remove the temporary code from this patch.
> 
> How about removing the disfunctional ioapic PCI driver first and then
> implementing the whole thing cleanly?
Good suggestion:)

>  
>>>
>>>>  			return -EEXIST;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -3918,6 +3931,14 @@ int mp_register_ioapic(int id, u32 address, u32 gsi_base,
>>>>  	ioapics[idx].irqdomain = NULL;
>>>>  	ioapics[idx].irqdomain_cfg = *cfg;
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (ioapic_initialized) {
>>>
>>> I have a hard time to understand this conditional. Why can't we do
>>> that unconditionally?
>> How about following comments?
>> /*
>>  * If mp_register_ioapic() is called during early boot stage when
>>  * walking ACPI/SFI/DT tables, it's too early to create irqdomain,
>>  * we are still using bootmem allocator. So delay it to setup_IO_APIC().
>>  */
> 
> Fine, but then the "if (ioapic_initialized)" conditional still does
> not make sense. We surely have some global non ioapic specific
> indicator that bootmem is done and the proper memory allocator is
> available, right?
Flag ioapic_initialized will be used to check whether we have created
irqdomains for IOAPICs. Currently function arch_dynirq_lower_bound()
uses that flag, and alloc_irq_from_domain() will use it too later.

> 
> Aside of that is there a point to walk those tables before we actually
> can make any use of their content?
At least we depend on walking those tables to detect whether system has
IOAPICs available:)

Regards!
Gerry
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
--
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/