| 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: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:52:30 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Allow GIC ITS number more than
MAX_NUMNODES
On 2017/7/25 18:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 22/07/17 04:54, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>>
>> When running 4.13-rc1 on top of D05, I got the boot log:
>>
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> ITS 0 -> Node 0
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> ITS 1 -> Node 0
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> ITS 2 -> Node 0
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 1 -> ITS 3 -> Node 1
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: ITS affinity exceeding max count[4]
>>
>> This is wrong on D05 as we have 8 ITSes with 4 NUMA nodes.
>>
>> So dynamically alloc the memory needed instead of using
>> its_srat_maps[MAX_NUMNODES], which count the number of
>> ITS entry(ies) in SRAT and alloc its_srat_maps as needed,
>> then build the mapping of numa node to ITS ID. Of course,
>> its_srat_maps will be freed after ITS probing because
>> we don't need that after boot.
>>
>> After doing this, I got what I wanted:
>>
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> ITS 0 -> Node 0
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> ITS 1 -> Node 0
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> ITS 2 -> Node 0
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 1 -> ITS 3 -> Node 1
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 2 -> ITS 4 -> Node 2
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 2 -> ITS 5 -> Node 2
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 2 -> ITS 6 -> Node 2
>> [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 3 -> ITS 7 -> Node 3
>>
>> Fixes: dbd2b8267233 ("irqchip/gic-v3-its: Add ACPI NUMA node mapping")
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>> ---
>>
>> v1->v2:
>> - Add NULL check in acpi_get_its_numa_node() for no ITS affinity case;
>> - Free the its_srat_maps after ITS probing.
>>
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> index 3ccdf76..1d692aa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> @@ -1847,13 +1847,16 @@ struct its_srat_map {
>> u32 its_id;
>> };
>>
>> -static struct its_srat_map its_srat_maps[MAX_NUMNODES] __initdata;
>> +static struct its_srat_map *its_srat_maps __initdata;
>> static int its_in_srat __initdata;
>>
>> static int __init acpi_get_its_numa_node(u32 its_id)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> + if (!its_srat_maps)
>> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < its_in_srat; i++) {
>> if (its_id == its_srat_maps[i].its_id)
>> return its_srat_maps[i].numa_node;
>> @@ -1861,6 +1864,12 @@ static int __init acpi_get_its_numa_node(u32 its_id)
>> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> }
>>
>> +static int __init gic_acpi_match_srat_its(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> + const unsigned long end)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int __init gic_acpi_parse_srat_its(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> const unsigned long end)
>> {
>> @@ -1877,12 +1886,6 @@ static int __init gic_acpi_parse_srat_its(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - if (its_in_srat >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
>> - pr_err("SRAT: ITS affinity exceeding max count[%d]\n",
>> - MAX_NUMNODES);
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>> -
>
> So you're getting rid of that message when overflowing the array...
This overflowing will not happen, because I scan the SRAT
to count the entry(ies) of ITS affinity first to alloc the
array, and then parse the same SRAT again to setup the mapping
of NUMA node to ITS, so is it fine for us to just remove the
check here?
>
>> node = acpi_map_pxm_to_node(its_affinity->proximity_domain);
>>
>> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE || node >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
>> @@ -1901,14 +1904,35 @@ static int __init gic_acpi_parse_srat_its(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>
>> static void __init acpi_table_parse_srat_its(void)
>> {
>> + int count;
>> +
>> + count = acpi_table_parse_entries(ACPI_SIG_SRAT,
>> + sizeof(struct acpi_table_srat),
>> + ACPI_SRAT_TYPE_GIC_ITS_AFFINITY,
>> + gic_acpi_match_srat_its, 0);
>> + if (count <= 0)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + its_srat_maps = kmalloc(count * sizeof(struct its_srat_map),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!its_srat_maps)
>> + return;
>
> and here silently returning when failing to allocate the memory. I think
> it'd be worth having a bit of a warning.
Will do.
>
>> +
>> acpi_table_parse_entries(ACPI_SIG_SRAT,
>> sizeof(struct acpi_table_srat),
>> ACPI_SRAT_TYPE_GIC_ITS_AFFINITY,
>> gic_acpi_parse_srat_its, 0);
>> }
>> +
>> +/* free the its_srat_maps after ITS probing */
>> +static void __init acpi_its_srat_maps_free(void)
>> +{
>> + kfree(its_srat_maps);
>> +}
>> #else
>> static void __init acpi_table_parse_srat_its(void) { }
>> static int __init acpi_get_its_numa_node(u32 its_id) { return NUMA_NO_NODE; }
>> +static void __init acpi_its_srat_maps_free(void) { }
>> #endif
>>
>> static int __init gic_acpi_parse_madt_its(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> @@ -1955,6 +1979,7 @@ static void __init its_acpi_probe(void)
>> acpi_table_parse_srat_its();
>> acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_TRANSLATOR,
>> gic_acpi_parse_madt_its, 0);
>> + acpi_its_srat_maps_free();
>> }
>> #else
>> static void __init its_acpi_probe(void) { }
>>
>
> Otherwise looks good.
Thanks
Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists