linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/numa: instance all parsed numa node

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:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:53:30 -0600
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/numa: instance all parsed numa node



> On Jul 8, 2019, at 3:35 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, Pingfan Liu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:44 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Pingfan Liu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I hit a bug on an AMD machine, with kexec -l nr_cpus=4 option. nr_cpus option
>>>> is used to speed up kdump process, so it is not a rare case.
>>> 
>>> But fundamentally wrong, really.
>>> 
>>> The rest of the CPUs are in a half baken state and any broadcast event,
>>> e.g. MCE or a stray IPI, will result in a undiagnosable crash.
>> Very appreciate if you can pay more word on it? I tried to figure out
>> your point, but fail.
>> 
>> For "a half baked state", I think you concern about LAPIC state, and I
>> expand this point like the following:
> 
> It's not only the APIC state. It's the state of the CPUs in general.
> 
>> For IPI: when capture kernel BSP is up, the rest cpus are still loop
>> inside crash_nmi_callback(), so there is no way to eject new IPI from
>> these cpu. Also we disable_local_APIC(), which effectively prevent the
>> LAPIC from responding to IPI, except NMI/INIT/SIPI, which will not
>> occur in crash case.
> 
> Fair enough for the IPI case.
> 
>> For MCE, I am not sure whether it can broadcast or not between cpus,
>> but as my understanding, it can not. Then is it a problem?
> 
> It can and it does.
> 
> That's the whole point why we bring up all CPUs in the 'nosmt' case and
> shut the siblings down again after setting CR4.MCE. Actually that's in fact
> a 'let's hope no MCE hits before that happened' approach, but that's all we
> can do.
> 
> If we don't do that then the MCE broadcast can hit a CPU which has some
> firmware initialized state. The result can be a full system lockup, triple
> fault etc.
> 
> So when the MCE hits a CPU which is still in the crashed kernel lala state,
> then all hell breaks lose.
> 
>> From another view point, is there any difference between nr_cpus=1 and
>> nr_cpus> 1 in crashing case? If stray IPI raises issue to nr_cpus>1,
>> it does for nr_cpus=1.
> 
> Anything less than the actual number of present CPUs is problematic except
> you use the 'let's hope nothing happens' approach. We could add an option
> to stop the bringup at the early online state similar to what we do for
> 'nosmt'.
> 
> 

How about we change nr_cpus to do that instead so we never have to have this conversation again?