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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:52:37 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> To: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com> Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Deepak Sharma <deepak.sharma@....com>, Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>, Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>, Nathan Fontenot <nathan.fontenot@....com>, Jinzhou Su <Jinzhou.Su@....com>, Xiaojian Du <Xiaojian.Du@....com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/21] ACPI: CPPC: Check online CPUs for determining _CPC is valid On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com> wrote: > > From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com> > > As this is a static check, it should be based upon what is currently > present on the system. This makes probeing more deterministic. > > While local APIC flags field (lapic_flags) of cpu core in MADT table is > 0, then the cpu core won't be enabled. In this case, _CPC won't be found > in this core, and return back to _CPC invalid with walking through > possible cpus (include disable cpus). This is not expected, so switch to > check online CPUs instead. > > Reported-by: Jinzhou Su <Jinzhou.Su@....com> > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com> > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com> > --- > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > index a4d4eebba1da..2efe2ba97d96 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ bool acpi_cpc_valid(void) > struct cpc_desc *cpc_ptr; > int cpu; > > - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { Shouldn't this be for_each_present_cpu()? In case a CPU is present, but not online when cppc_cpufreq is loaded? > cpc_ptr = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu); > if (!cpc_ptr) > return false; > --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists