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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:21:40 +0200 From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> writes: > On 04/20/2017 11:40 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:24:53PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>>> In this patch I suggest we set __max_logical_packages based on the >>>> max_physical_pkg_id and total_cpus, >>> So my 4 socket 144 CPU system will then get max_physical_pkg_id=144, >>> instead of 4. >>> >>> This wastes quite a bit of memory for the per-node arrays. Luckily most >>> are just pointer arrays, but still, wasting 140*8 bytes for each of >>> them. >>> >>>> this should be safe and cover all >>>> possible cases. Alternatively, we may think about eliminating the concept >>>> of __max_logical_packages completely and relying on max_physical_pkg_id/ >>>> total_cpus where we currently use topology_max_packages(). >>>> >>>> The issue could've been solved in Xen too I guess. CPUID returning >>>> x86_max_cores can be tweaked to be the lowerest(?) possible number of >>>> all logical packages of the guest. >>> This is getting ludicrous. Xen is plain broken, and instead of fixing >>> it, you propose to somehow deal with its obviously crack induced >>> behaviour :-( >> Totally agree and I don't like the solution I propose (and that's why >> this is RFC)... The problem is that there are such Xen setups in the >> wild and with the recent changes some guests will BUG() :-( >> >> Alternatively, we can just remove the BUG() and do something with CPUs >> which have their pkg >= __max_logical_packages, e.g. assign them to the >> last package. Far from ideal but will help to avoid the regression. > > Do you observe this failure on PV or HVM guest? > > We've had a number of issues with topology discovery for PV guests but > AFAIK they have been addressed (so far). I wonder though whether it > would make sense to have some sort of a callback (or an smp_ops.op) to > override native topology info, if needed. > This is HVM. I guess that CPUID handling for AMD processors in the hypervisor doesn't adjust the core information and passes it from hardware as-is while it should be tweaked. -- Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists