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:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 16:24:30 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....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 2019/10/22 21:55, Robin Murphy wrote:
> 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.

Will drop the "by BIOS" part if there is another version.
Tnanks for clarifying.

> 
> Robin.
> 
> .
>