linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86

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

Message-ID: <20190902072542.GN2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:25:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     dalias@...c.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        paulus@...ba.org, hpa@...or.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        chenhc@...ote.com, will@...nel.org, cai@....pw,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, x86@...nel.org, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, dledford@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        jhogan@...nel.org, nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        len.brown@...el.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@....com,
        bp@...en8.de, luto@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, rth@...ddle.net,
        axboe@...nel.dk, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
        tbogendoerfer@...e.de, paul.burton@...s.com,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:46:51PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/9/1 0:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > 1) because even it is not set, the device really does belong to a node.
> > It is impossible a device will have magic uniform access to memory when
> > CPUs cannot.
> 
> So it means dev_to_node() will return either NUMA_NO_NODE or a
> valid node id?

NUMA_NO_NODE := -1, which is not a valid node number. It is also, like I
said, not a valid device location on a NUMA system.

Just because ACPI/BIOS is shit, doesn't mean the device doesn't have a
node association. It just means we don't know and might have to guess.

> > 2) is already true today, cpumask_of_node() requires a valid node_id.
> 
> Ok, most of the user does check node_id before calling
> cpumask_of_node(), but does a little different type of checking:
> 
> 1) some does " < 0" check;
> 2) some does "== NUMA_NO_NODE" check;
> 3) some does ">= MAX_NUMNODES" check;
> 4) some does "< 0 || >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node)" check.

The one true way is:

	'(unsigned)node_id >= nr_node_ids'

> > 3) is just wrong and increases overhead for everyone.
> 
> Ok, cpumask_of_node() is also used in some critical path such
> as scheduling, which may not need those checking, the overhead
> is unnecessary.
> 
> But for non-critical path such as setup or configuration path,
> it better to have consistent checking, and also simplify the
> user code that calls cpumask_of_node().
> 
> Do you think it is worth the trouble to add a new function
> such as cpumask_of_node_check(maybe some other name) to do
> consistent checking?
> 
> Or caller just simply check if dev_to_node()'s return value is
> NUMA_NO_NODE before calling cpumask_of_node()?

It is not a matter of convenience. The function is called
cpumask_of_node(), when node < 0 || node >= nr_node_ids, it is not a
valid node, therefore the function shouldn't return anything except an
error.

Also note that the CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS version of
cpumask_of_node() already does this (although it wants the below fix).

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
index e6dad600614c..5f49c10201c7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
@@ -861,7 +861,7 @@ void numa_remove_cpu(int cpu)
  */
 const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
 {
-	if (node >= nr_node_ids) {
+	if ((unsigned)node >= nr_node_ids) {
 		printk(KERN_WARNING
 			"cpumask_of_node(%d): node > nr_node_ids(%u)\n",
 			node, nr_node_ids);