linux-kernel - Re: Panic starting 6.2.x and later 6.1.x kernels

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:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:20:27 +0100
From:   David R <david@...olicited.net>
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Gabriel David <ultracoolguy@...root.org>,
        eric.devolder@...cle.com
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kvijayab@....com>
Subject: Re: Panic starting 6.2.x and later 6.1.x kernels

On 29/03/2023 20:17, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> On 3/29/2023 14:14, David R wrote:
>> I note that 6.2.8 still has:
>>
>> static bool __init acpi_is_processor_usable(u32 lapic_flags)
>> {
>>          if (lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED)
>>                  return true;
>>
>>          if (acpi_support_online_capable && (lapic_flags & 
>> ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE))
>>                  return true;
>>
>>          return false;
>> }
>>
>> The flag getting set to false won't help unless the patch I tried 
>> previously is applied ?
>>
>> diff 
>> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230327191026.3454-2-eric.devolder@oracle.com/#iZ31arch:x86:kernel:acpi:boot.c> 
>> --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c 
>> index 1c38174b5f01..7b5b8ed018b0 100644 --- 
>> a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c @@ 
>> -193,7 +193,13 @@ static bool __init acpi_is_processor_usable(u32 
>> lapic_flags)       if (lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED)
>>           return true;
>>   - if (acpi_support_online_capable && (lapic_flags & 
>> ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE)) + /* + * Prior to MADT.revision 5, the 
>> presence of the Local x2/APIC + * structure _implicitly_ noted a 
>> possible hotpluggable cpu. + * Starting with MADT.revision 5, the 
>> Online Capable bit + * _explicitly_ indicates a hotpluggable cpu. + 
>> */ + if (!acpi_support_online_capable || (lapic_flags & 
>> ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE))           return true;
>>         return false;
>> -- 
>>
>
> You mean specifically this change:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230327191026.3454-2-eric.devolder@oracle.com/ 
>
>
> Yes; I suppose that still makes sense.
>
Yes, that's the one.

But the fact that  that one worked own its own implies that my system 
never had the flag set in the first place?

David