linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] RISC-V: Do not use cpumask data structure for hartid bitmap

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:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:55:28 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>
Cc:     Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] RISC-V: Do not use cpumask data structure for
 hartid bitmap

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:39 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:13 AM Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:48 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >> What about shifting hmask and adjusting hbase if a hartid is
> >> lower than the current hbase?
> >
> > That will probably work for current systems but it will fail when we have hartid > 64.
> > The below logic as it assumes that the hartids are in order. We can have a situation
> > where a two consecutive cpuid belong to hartids that require two invocations of sbi call
> > because the number of harts exceeds BITS_PER_LONG.
>
> If the number of harts exceeds BITS_PER_LONG, you always need multiple
> calls, right?
>
> I think the below (gmail-whitespace-damaged diff) should work:
>
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static void __sbi_set_timer_v02(uint64_t stime_value)
>
>  static int __sbi_send_ipi_v02(const struct cpumask *cpu_mask)
>  {
> -       unsigned long hartid, cpuid, hmask = 0, hbase = 0;
> +       unsigned long hartid, cpuid, hmask = 0, hbase = 0, htop = 0;
>         struct sbiret ret = {0};
>         int result;
>
> @@ -258,16 +258,27 @@ static int __sbi_send_ipi_v02(const struct
> cpumask *cpu_mask)
>
>         for_each_cpu(cpuid, cpu_mask) {
>                 hartid = cpuid_to_hartid_map(cpuid);
> -               if (hmask &&
> -                   (hartid < hbase || hartid >= hbase + BITS_PER_LONG)) {

Oops, I actually sent the diff against the simpler solution below,
not against the current code, but I guess you get the idea.
I can send a proper patch when agreed.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds