linux-kernel - Re: (EXT) Re: [PATCH] of: skip disabled CPU nodes

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: <CAL_Jsq+1LsTBdVaODVfmB0eme2jMpNL4VgKk-OM7rQWyyF0Jbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:26:47 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: (EXT) Re: [PATCH] of: skip disabled CPU nodes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:47 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 2020-08-26 08:54, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 08:01 -0500, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 2020-08-26 07:02, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> >>> Allow disabling CPU nodes using status = "disabled".
> >>>
> >>> This allows a bootloader to change the number of available CPUs
> >>> (for
> >>> example when a common DTS is used for SoC variants with different
> >>> numbers
> >>> of cores) without deleting the nodes altogether (which may require
> >>> additional fixups where the CPU nodes are referenced, e.g. a
> >>> cooling
> >>> map).
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com
> >>>>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/of/base.c | 2 ++
> >>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> >>> index ea44fea99813..d547e9deced1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> >>> @@ -796,6 +796,8 @@ struct device_node *of_get_next_cpu_node(struct
> >>> device_node *prev)
> >>>             of_node_put(node);
> >>>     }
> >>>     for (; next; next = next->sibling) {
> >>> +           if (!__of_device_is_available(next))
> >>> +                   continue;
> >>>             if (!(of_node_name_eq(next, "cpu") ||
> >>>                   __of_node_is_type(next, "cpu")))
> >>>                     continue;
> >>>
> >>
> >> The original implementation of of_get_next_cpu_node() had
> >> that check, but status disabled for cpu nodes has different
> >> semantics than other nodes, and the check broke some systems.
> >> The check was removed by c961cb3be906 "of: Fix cpu node
> >> iterator to not ignore disabled cpu nodes".
> >>
> >> It would be useful to document that difference in the
> >> header comment of of_get_next_cpu_node().
> >>
> >> -Frank
> >
> > Hmm, I see. This difference in behaviour is quite unfortunate, as I'm
> > currently looking for a way to *really* disable a CPU core.
> >
> > In arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mn.dtsi (and other variants of the
> > i.MX8M), there are 4 CPU nodes for the full-featured quad-core version.
> > The reduced single- and dual-core versions are currently handled in
> > NXP's U-Boot fork by deleting the additional nodes.
> >
> > Not doing so causes the kernel to hang for a while when trying to
> > online the non-existent cores during boot (at least in linux-imx 5.4 -
> > I have not checked a more recent mainline kernel yet), but the deletion
> > is non-trivial to do without leaving dangling phandle references.
>
> Any thoughts on implementing another universal property that means
> something like "the hardware described by this node does not exist
> or is so broken that you better not use it".

There's a couple of options:

The DT spec defines 'fail' value for status. We could use that instead
of 'disabled'.

The spec behavior with cpu 'disabled' is only on PPC AFAIK. On
arm/arm64 (probably riscv now too) we've never followed it where we
online 'disabled' CPUs. So we could just make the check conditional on
!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC). This would need some spec update.

> Matthias, if Rob thinks that is a good idea, then you should start
> with a new proposal that is also sent to
> devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org <devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org>
>
> -Frank
>
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Matthias
> >
>