linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Make logical package management more robust

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:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 22:27:37 -0500
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@...cade.com>,
        "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@...box.com>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
        Juergen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Make logical package management more robust

On 12/09/2016 06:02 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 05:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> Boris, can you please verify if that makes the
>> topology_update_package_map() call which you placed into the Xen cpu
>> starting code obsolete ?
>
> Will do. I did test your patch but without removing
> topology_update_package_map() call. It complained about package IDs
> being wrong, but that's expected until I fix Xen part.

Ignore my statement about earlier testing --- it was all on single-node 
machines.

Something is broken with multi-node on Intel, but failure modes are 
different. Prior to this patch build_sched_domain() reports an error and 
pretty soon we crash in scheduler (don't remember off the top of my 
head). With patch applied I crash mush later, when one of the drivers 
does kmalloc_node(.., cpu_to_node(cpu)) and cpu_to_node() returns 1, 
which should never happen ("x86: Booted up 1 node, 32 CPUs" is reported, 
for example).

2-node AMD box doesn't have these problems.

I haven't upgraded the Intel machine for about a month but this all must 
have happened in 4.9 timeframe.

So I can't answer your question since we clearly have other problems on 
Xen. I will be looking into this.

-boris