linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: warn if NUMA configurations conflicts with lower layer

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: <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340E2592@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:51:10 +0000
From:   "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
CC:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: warn if NUMA configurations conflicts
 with lower layer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valentin Schneider [mailto:valentin.schneider@....com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 4:56 AM
> To: Zengtao (B); Morten Rasmussen
> Cc: Sudeep Holla; Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: warn if NUMA configurations conflicts
> with lower layer
> 
> On 09/01/2020 12:58, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> >> IIUC, the problem is that virt can set up a broken topology in some
> >> cases where MPIDR doesn't line up correctly with the defined NUMA
> >> nodes.
> >>
> >> We could argue that it is a qemu/virt problem, but it would be nice if
> >> we could at least detect it. The proposed patch isn't really the right
> >> solution as it warns on some valid topologies as Sudeep already pointed
> >> out.
> >>
> >> It sounds more like we need a mask subset check in the sched_domain
> >> building code, if there isn't already one?
> >
> > Currently no, it's a bit complex to do the check in the sched_domain
> building code,
> > I need to take a think of that.
> > Suggestion welcomed.
> >
> 
> Doing a search on the sched_domain spans themselves should look
> something like
> the completely untested:
> 
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index 6ec1e595b1d4..96128d12ec23 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -1879,6 +1879,43 @@ static struct sched_domain
> *build_sched_domain(struct sched_domain_topology_leve
>  	return sd;
>  }
> 
> +/* Ensure topology masks are sane; non-NUMA spans shouldn't overlap */
> +static int validate_topology_spans(const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
> +{
> +	struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl;
> +	int i, j;
> +
> +	for_each_sd_topology(tl) {
> +		/* NUMA levels are allowed to overlap */
> +		if (tl->flags & SDTL_OVERLAP)
> +			break;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Non-NUMA levels cannot partially overlap - they must be
> +		 * either equal or wholly disjoint. Otherwise we can end up
> +		 * breaking the sched_group lists - i.e. a later get_group()
> +		 * pass breaks the linking done for an earlier span.
> +		 */
> +		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> +			for_each_cpu(j, cpu_map) {
> +				if (i == j)
> +					continue;
> +				/*
> +				 * We should 'and' all those masks with 'cpu_map'
> +				 * to exactly match the topology we're about to
> +				 * build, but that can only remove CPUs, which
> +				 * only lessens our ability to detect overlaps
> +				 */
> +				if (!cpumask_equal(tl->mask(i), tl->mask(j)) &&
> +				    cpumask_intersects(tl->mask(i), tl->mask(j)))
> +					return -1;
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Find the sched_domain_topology_level where all CPU capacities are
> visible
>   * for all CPUs.
> @@ -1953,7 +1990,8 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask
> *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
>  	struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl_asym;
>  	bool has_asym = false;
> 
> -	if (WARN_ON(cpumask_empty(cpu_map)))
> +	if (WARN_ON(cpumask_empty(cpu_map)) ||
> +	    WARN_ON(validate_topology_spans(cpu_map)))
>  		goto error;
> 
>  	alloc_state = __visit_domain_allocation_hell(&d, cpu_map);
> --->8---
> 
> Alternatively the assertion on the sched_group linking I suggested earlier
> in the thread should suffice, since this should trigger whenever we have
> overlapping non-NUMA sched domains.
> 
> Since you have a setup where you can reproduce the issue, could please
> give
> either (ideally both!) a try? Thanks.


I have tried both, this previous one don't work. But this one seems work
correctly with the warning message printout as expected.

This patch is based on the fact " non-NUMA spans shouldn't overlap ", I am
not quite sure if this is always true? 

Anyway, Could you help to raise the new patch?

Thanks
Zengtao

> 
> > Thanks
> > Zengtao
> >
> >>
> >> Morten