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:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:26:36 +0800
From:   Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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 Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:53 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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?
Are you interest in implementing this?

Thanks,
  Pingfan