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, 07 Aug 2023 16:54:03 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/53] x86/cpu/topology: Make the APIC mismatch warnings
 complete

On Mon, Aug 07 2023 at 07:28, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On 8/7/2023 6:52 AM, T
>>   
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/topology_common.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/topology_common.c
>> @@ -176,6 +176,16 @@ void cpu_parse_topology(struct cpuinfo_x
>>   
>>   	parse_topology(&tscan, false);
>>   
>> +	if (c->topo.initial_apicid != c->topo.apicid) {
>> +		pr_err(FW_BUG "CPU%4u: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x%04x APIC: 0x%04x\n",
>> +		       cpu, c->topo.initial_apicid, c->topo.apicid);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (c->topo.apicid != cpuid_to_apicid[cpu]) {
>> +		pr_err(FW_BUG "CPU%4u: APIC ID mismatch. Firmware: 0x%04x APIC: 0x%04x\n",
>> +		       cpu, cpuid_to_apicid[cpu], c->topo.apicid);
>> +	}
>> +
>
> while these messages are basically the same as current ones they are short one key thing for the user
> ... which one of the two will be used. Yes one can look up in the source code where the message comes from
> and reverse engineer that... or we can just add this to these pr_err() messages
>
>
> like
>
> pr_err(FW_BUG "CPU%4u: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x%04x APIC: 0x%04x. APIC value will be used.\n",
> 		       cpu, c->topo.initial_apicid, c->topo.apicid);

Good point.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ