linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86/acpi, x86/boot: Add multiprocessor wake-up support

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, 10 May 2021 19:23:02 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Rafael J Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@...ica.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86/acpi, x86/boot: Add multiprocessor wake-up support

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:10 PM Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/10/21 9:55 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not sure how my comment regarding the fact that for a given CPU
> > this function is only usable once has been addressed.
> >
> > While it may not be a practical concern in the use case that you are
> > after (TDX), this is a generic mechanism and it needs to cover other
> > possible usage scenarios.
>
> For the same CPU, if we try to use mailbox again, firmware will not
> respond to it.

Well, theoretically, but what if it checks the mailbox every time for
all CPUs?  Or similar?

> So the command will timeout and return error.

If the firmware behaves as expected, but what if it doesn't?