linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/tsc: Extend the watchdog check exemption to 4S/8S machine

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:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:52:19 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        tim.c.chen@...el.com, Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>,
        Yu Liao <liaoyu15@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tsc: Extend the watchdog check exemption to 4S/8S
 machine

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 07:23:10AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/9/22 18:23, Feng Tang wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> >>> index cafacb2e58cc..b4ea79cb1d1a 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> >>> @@ -1217,7 +1217,7 @@ static void __init check_system_tsc_reliable(void)
> >>>  	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC) &&
> >>>  	    boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC) &&
> >>>  	    boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST) &&
> >>> -	    nr_online_nodes <= 2)
> >>> +	    nr_online_nodes <= 8)
> >> So you're saying all 8 socket systems since Broadwell (?) are TSC
> >> sync'ed ?
> > No, I didn't mean that. I haven't got chance to any 8 sockets
> > machine, and I got a report last month that on one 8S machine,
> > the TSC was judged 'unstable' by HPET as watchdog.
> 
> That's not a great check.  Think about numa=fake=4U, for instance.  Or a
> single-socket system with persistent memory and high bandwidth memory.
> 
> Basically 'nr_online_nodes' is a software construct.  It's going to be
> really hard to infer anything from it about what the _hardware_ is.

We have both c->phys_proc_id and c->logical_proc_id along with
logical_packages.

I'm thinking you want something like max(c->phys_proc_id) <= 4. Because
even if you only populate 4 sockets of an 8 socket server you're up a
creek without no paddles.

But it all comes down to how much drugs the firmware teams have had :/
It is entirely possible to enumerate with phys_proc_id==42 on a 2 socket
system.