linux-kernel - Re: [tip: x86/urgent] x86/acpi: Ignore invalid x2APIC entries

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]

Message-ID: <20231207051035.yef3jix44uo6jlav@awork3.anarazel.de>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 21:10:35 -0800
From:   Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
To:     "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:     "linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "jsperbeck@...gle.com" <jsperbeck@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sashal@...nel.org" <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "tip-bot2@...utronix.de" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/urgent] x86/acpi: Ignore invalid x2APIC entries

Hi,

On 2023-12-07 02:41:34 +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 22:58 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 2023-12-01 08:31:48 +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > > As a quick fix, I'm not going to fix the "potential issue"
> > > describes
> > > above because we have not seen a real problem caused by this yet.
> > > 
> > > Can you please try the below patch to confirm if the problem is
> > > gone on
> > > your system?
> > > This patch falls back to the previous way as sent at
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87pm4bp54z.ffs@tglx/T/
> > 
> > 
> > I've just spent a couple hours bisecting why upgrading to 6.7-rc4
> > left me with
> > just a single CPU core on my dual socket workstation.
> > 
> > 
> > before:
> > [    0.000000] Linux version 6.6.0-andres-00003-g31255e072b2e ...
> > ...
> > [    0.022960] ACPI: Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration
> > information
> > ...
> > [    0.022968] smpboot: Allowing 40 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs
> > ...
> > [    0.345921] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5215 CPU @
> > 2.50GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x55, stepping: 0x7)
> > ...
> > [    0.347229] .... node  #0, CPUs:        #1  #2  #3  #4  #5  #6 
> > #7  #8  #9
> > [    0.349082] .... node  #1, CPUs:   #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17
> > #18 #19
> > [    0.003190] smpboot: CPU 10 Converting physical 0 to logical die 1
> > 
> > [    0.361053] .... node  #0, CPUs:   #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27
> > #28 #29
> > [    0.363990] .... node  #1, CPUs:   #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37
> > #38 #39
> > ...
> > [    0.370886] smp: Brought up 2 nodes, 40 CPUs
> > [    0.370891] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2
> > [    0.370896] smpboot: Total of 40 processors activated (200000.00
> > BogoMIPS)
> > [    0.403905] node 0 deferred pages initialised in 32ms
> > [    0.408865] node 1 deferred pages initialised in 37ms
> > 
> > 
> > after:
> > [    0.000000] Linux version 6.6.0-andres-00004-gec9aedb2aa1a ...
> > ...
> > [    0.022935] ACPI: Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration
> > information
> > ...
> > [    0.022942] smpboot: Allowing 1 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs
> > ...
> > [    0.356424] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5215 CPU @
> > 2.50GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x55, stepping: 0x7)
> > ...
> > [    0.357098] smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
> > [    0.357107] smp: Brought up 2 nodes, 1 CPU
> > [    0.357108] smpboot: Max logical packages: 1
> > [    0.357110] smpboot: Total of 1 processors activated (5000.00
> > BogoMIPS)
> > [    0.726283] node 0 deferred pages initialised in 368ms
> > [    0.774704] node 1 deferred pages initialised in 418ms
> > 
> > 
> > There does seem to be something off with the ACPI data, when booting
> > without
> > the patch,
> 
> which patch are you referring to? the original patch in this thread?

Yes, the the original patch / the state in 6.7-rc4.


> Does the second patch fixes the problem? I mean the patch at
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/904ce2b870b8a7f34114f93adc7c8170420869d1.camel@intel.com/

Yes.

Greetings,

Andres Freund