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:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:40:11 +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 9:34 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
I had sent out a patch to fix maxcpus "[PATCH] smp: force all cpu to
boot once under maxcpus option"
But for the case of nrcpus, I think things will not be so easy due to
percpu area, and I think it may take a quite different way.

Thanks,
  Pingfan