linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v3 02/21] ACPI: processor: Add support for processors described as container packages

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: <CAJZ5v0jvuTAMak-x=ekphwgNsUWABGRcDPb8D4QB=KhfyC76Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:05:15 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, x86@...nel.org, 
	acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, 
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, jianyong.wu@....com, justin.he@....com, 
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 02/21] ACPI: processor: Add support for processors
 described as container packages

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:49 PM Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:17:34PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:49 PM Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> > >
> > > ACPI has two ways of describing processors in the DSDT. From ACPI v6.5,
> > > 5.2.12:
> > >
> > > "Starting with ACPI Specification 6.3, the use of the Processor() object
> > > was deprecated. Only legacy systems should continue with this usage. On
> > > the Itanium architecture only, a _UID is provided for the Processor()
> > > that is a string object. This usage of _UID is also deprecated since it
> > > can preclude an OSPM from being able to match a processor to a
> > > non-enumerable device, such as those defined in the MADT. From ACPI
> > > Specification 6.3 onward, all processor objects for all architectures
> > > except Itanium must now use Device() objects with an _HID of ACPI0007,
> > > and use only integer _UID values."
> > >
> > > Also see https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/08_Processor_Configuration_and_Control.html#declaring-processors
> > >
> > > Duplicate descriptions are not allowed, the ACPI processor driver already
> > > parses the UID from both devices and containers. acpi_processor_get_info()
> > > returns an error if the UID exists twice in the DSDT.
> >
> > I'm not really sure how the above is related to the actual patch.
> >
> > > The missing probe for CPUs described as packages
> >
> > It is unclear what exactly is meant by "CPUs described as packages".
> >
> > From the patch, it looks like those would be Processor() objects
> > defined under a processor container device.
> >
> > > creates a problem for
> > > moving the cpu_register() calls into the acpi_processor driver, as CPUs
> > > described like this don't get registered, leading to errors from other
> > > subsystems when they try to add new sysfs entries to the CPU node.
> > > (e.g. topology_sysfs_init()'s use of topology_add_dev() via cpuhp)
> > >
> > > To fix this, parse the processor container and call acpi_processor_add()
> > > for each processor that is discovered like this.
> >
> > Discovered like what?
> >
> > > The processor container
> > > handler is added with acpi_scan_add_handler(), so no detach call will
> > > arrive.
> >
> > The above requires clarification too.
>
> The above comments... yea. As I didn't write the commit description, but
> James did, and James has basically vanished, I don't think these can be
> answered, short of rewriting the entire commit message, with me spending
> a lot of time with the ACPI specification trying to get the terminology
> right - because at lot of the above on the face of it seems to be things
> to do with wrong terminology being used.
>
> I wasn't expecting this level of issues with this patch set, and I now
> feel completely out of my depth with this series. I'm wondering whether
> I should even continue with it, since I don't have the ACPI knowledge
> to address a lot of these comments.

Well, sorry about this.

I met James at the LPC last year, so he seems to be still around, in
some way at least..