linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Warn about host bridge device when its numa node is NO

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, 21 Oct 2019 12:05:44 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
        <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <paul.burton@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Warn about host bridge device when its numa node is
 NO_NODE

On 2019/10/19 16:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 02:45:43PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> +	if (nr_node_ids > 1 && dev_to_node(bus->bridge) == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>> +		dev_err(bus->bridge, FW_BUG "No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates.\n");
>> +
> 
> The whole idea of mentioning a BIOS in architeture indepent code doesn't
> make sense at all.

Mentioning the BIOS is to tell user what firmware is broken, so that
user can report this to their vendor by referring the specific firmware.

It seems we can specific the node through different ways(DT, ACPI, etc).

Is there a better name for mentioning instead of BIOS, or we should do
the checking and warning in the architeture dependent code?

Or maybe just remove the BIOS from the above log?

Thanks.

> 
> .
>