linux-kernel - Re: AMD EPYC Topology problems

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181203111359.GA31670@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:13:59 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     Xen-devel List <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
        Brian Woods <brian.woods@....com>,
        SuraveeSuthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijeshkumar.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: AMD EPYC Topology problems

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have dual socket server with the following processor:
> 
> [root@...mia-09-01 ~]# head /proc/cpuinfo 
> processor	: 0
> vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
> cpu family	: 23
> model		: 1
> model name	: AMD EPYC 7281 16-Core Processor
> stepping	: 2
> 
> Which has highlighted a issue in the topology derivation logic. 
> (Actually, it was discovered with Xen, but we share the same topology
> infrastructure and the issue is also present with Linux).
> 
> There are a total of 64 threads in the system, made of two 32-thread
> sockets.  The APIC IDs for this system are sparse - they are 0x0-0x3,
> 0x8-0xb, 0x10-0x13 etc, all the way up to 0x7b.
> 
> This is because the socket is made of 4 nodes with 4 cores each, but
> space has been left in the layout for the maximum possible number of
> APIC IDs.
> 
> In particular, CPUID 0x80000008:ecx reports 0x0000601f.  That is, an
> APIC ID shift of 6 (reporting a maximum of 64 threads per socket), and
> NC as 31 (reporting 32 threads per socket in the current configuration).
> 
> c->x86_max_cores is derived from NC and shifted once to exclude threads,
> giving it a final value of 16 cores per socket.

So far so good.

> Given the sparseness of the APIC IDs, it is unsafe to allocate an array

Do we do this somewhere or is this a hypothetical thing?

> of c->x86_max_cores entries, then index it with c->cpu_core_id, as half
> the cores in the system have a cpu_core_id greater than x86_max_cores. 

You lost me here. ->cpu_core_id comes from CPUID_Fn8000001E_EBX[7:0].
Are you saying, those core IDs on your box are sparse like the APIC IDs
you mention above?

> There is no logical core ID derived during boot which might be a safe to
> use as an index.
> 
> Furthermore, the documentation indicates that these values are expected
> to be per-package, while they are all actually per-socket (with up to 4
> nodes per socket) in the EPYC case.

>From Documentation/x86/topology.txt:
"
  - cpuinfo_x86.x86_max_cores:

    The number of cores in a package. This information is retrieved via CPUID."

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.