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]
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:14:01 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@...cade.com>
cc:     "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@...box.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
> On 11/09/2016 10:57 PM, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote:
> > [    0.002000] mvb: CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
> > [    0.002000] mvb: CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
> > [    0.002000] mvb: identify_cpu:1112: c: ffff880013b0a040,
> > c->logical_proc_id: 65535
> > [    0.002000] mvb: __default_cpu_present_to_apicid:612: Returning 65535!
> > mps_cpu: 1, nr_cpu_ids: 2, cpu_present(mps_cpu): 1
> > [    0.002000] smpboot: mvb: topology_update_package_map:270: cpu: 1, pkg:
> > 4095
> > [    0.002000] smpboot: APIC(ffff) Converting physical 4095 to logical
> > package 0
> > [    0.002000] smpboot: mvb: topology_update_package_map:305: cpu: 1,
> > cpu_data(cpu).logical_proc_id: 0
> 
> This seems strange.  0xffff is BAD_APICID.  Why didn't this fail here:
> 
>         for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>                 unsigned int apicid = apic->cpu_present_to_apicid(cpu);
> 
>                 if (apicid == BAD_APICID || !apic->apic_id_valid(apicid))
> <<<<<<<<<<
>                         continue;
>                 if (!topology_update_package_map(apicid, cpu))
>                         continue;
> 
> topology_update_package_map() should never have been called?

That's right. Looking into it ....
 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ