linux-kernel - Re: intel_pstate oopses and lockdep report with Linux v4.5-1822-g63e30271b04c

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: <CA+5PVA4iMHGEhSjDOwR_JB2i+wL2o6v7-aTErfsJ5nqFHp+JMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:44:54 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Philippe Longepe <philippe.longepe@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: intel_pstate oopses and lockdep report with Linux v4.5-1822-g63e30271b04c

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 09:02:29 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Hello,
>
> Hi,
>
>> I have an Intel Atom based NUC that is producing the following
>> backtraces on boot of Linus' tree as of last evening.  This does not
>> happen with a tree with top level commit 271ecc5253e2, but does happen
>> when using the tree mentioned in the subject with top level commit
>> 63e30271b04c.
>>
>> The first backtrace appears to be a warning because the intel_pstate
>> driver is calling wrmsrl_on_cpu when interrupts are disabled?  Not
>> sure on that one.
>>
>> The second backtrace is a lockdep report.  Both are from the same boot.
>
> OK, thanks for the report.
>
> Can you please try the patch below?
>
> I'm actually unsure if we can do that safely in general for Atom because
> of the initialization, but that's what Core does anyway.
>
> Srinivas, Philippe, why exactly do we need the wrmsrl_on_cpu() in
> atom_set_pstate()?  core_set_pstate() uses wrmsrl() and seems to be doing fine.
>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static void atom_set_pstate(struct cpuda
>
>         val |= vid;
>
> -       wrmsrl_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL, val);
> +       wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL, val);
>  }
>
>  static int silvermont_get_scaling(void)
>

I applied this on top of commit 09fd671ccb24 and the backtrace and
lockdep report both go away.  So yes, this seems to clear up the
issue.  I tested it on a variety of different CPU types and didn't
notice anything wrong on them either.

josh