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]

Message-Id: <4AF3459B-28F2-425F-8E4B-40311DEF30C6@amacapital.net>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:34:08 -0600
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
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 Jul 9, 2019, at 1:24 AM, Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:12 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Pingfan Liu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:35 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Thank you for the comprehensive explain. With your guide, now, I have
>>> a full understanding of the issue.
>>> 
>>> But when I tried to add something to enable CR4.MCE in
>>> crash_nmi_callback(), I realized that it is undo-able in some case (if
>>> crashed, we will not ask an offline smt cpu to online), also it is
>>> needless. "kexec -l/-p" takes the advantage of the cpu state in the
>>> first kernel, where all logical cpu has CR4.MCE=1.
>>> 
>>> So kexec is exempt from this bug if the first kernel already do it.
>> 
>> No. If the MCE broadcast is handled by a CPU which is stuck in the old
>> kernel stop loop, then it will execute on the old kernel and eventually run
>> into the memory corruption which crashed the old one.
>> 
> Yes, you are right. Stuck cpu may execute the old do_machine_check()
> code. But I just found out that we have
> do_machine_check()->__mc_check_crashing_cpu() to against this case.
> 
> And I think the MCE issue with nr_cpus is not closely related with
> this series, can
> be a separated issue. I had question whether Andy will take it, if
> not, I am glad to do it.
> 
> 

Go for it. I’m not familiar enough with the SMP boot stuff that I would be able to do it any faster than you. I’ll gladly help review it.