linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54E51FFD.7080506@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:27:57 -0800
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
CC:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable

On 02/18/15 14:27, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:42:54PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Writes to /sys/.../cpuX/online fail if we determine the platform
>> doesn't support hotplug for that CPU. Furthermore, if the cpu_die
>> op isn't specified the system hangs when we try to offline a CPU
>> and it comes right back online unexpectedly. Let's figure this
>> stuff out before we make the sysfs nodes so that the online file
>> doesn't even exist if it isn't (at least sometimes) possible to
>> hotplug the CPU.
>>
>> Add a new cpu_can_disable op and repoint all cpu_disable
>> implementations at it because all current users use the op to
>> indicate if a CPU can be hotplugged or not in a static fashion.
>> With PSCI we may need to introduce a cpu_disable op so that the
>> secure OS can be migrated off the CPU we're trying to hotplug.
>> In this case, the cpu_can_disable op will indicate that all CPUs
>> are hotpluggable by returning 1, but the cpu_disable op will make
>> a PSCI migration call and occasionally fail, denying the hotplug
>> of a CPU. This shouldn't be any worse than x86 where we may
>> indicate that all CPUs are hotpluggable but occasionally we can't
>> offline a CPU due to check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable() failing
>> to find a CPU to move vectors to.
>>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
>> Cc: <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since v2:
>>  * Left cpu_disable op in place
>>  * Split out shmobile function deletion
>>
>>  arch/arm/common/mcpm_platsmp.c       | 12 ++++--------
>>  arch/arm/include/asm/smp.h           | 10 ++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/kernel/setup.c              |  2 +-
>>  arch/arm/kernel/smp.c                | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h      |  2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/platsmp.c     |  4 ++--
>>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7790.c |  2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7791.c |  2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-sh73a0.c  |  2 +-
>>  9 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> I think it would make sense to separate the ARM-core changes
> from the mach-shmobile integration changes.

Are you saying two (three?) patches to add the op, and then move over
each struct smp_operations? It's all going through rmk's tree so I'll
leave that up to him.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
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/