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]

Message-ID: <e35bd451-bdb7-ec02-d691-aa3720d1e10b@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:55:35 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
        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, 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 21/10/2019 05:05, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> 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.

[ Come to think of it, I'm sure an increasing number of x86 firmwares 
don't even implement a PC BIOS any more... ]

In all fairness, the server-class Arm-based machines I've come across so 
far do seem to consistently call their EFI firmware images "BIOS" 
despite the clear anachronism. At least the absurdity of conflating a 
system setup program with a semiconductor process seems to have mostly 
died out ;)

> 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?

Even though there may be some degree of historical convention hanging 
around on ACPI-based systems, that argument almost certainly doesn't 
hold for OF/FDT/etc. - the "[Firmware Bug]:" prefix is hopefully 
indicative enough, so I'd say just drop the "by BIOS" part.

Robin.