linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/9] x86: Cure per CPU madness on UP

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: <87y1ajjsv9.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:40:42 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, Guenter Roeck
 <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org, Uros Bizjak
 <ubizjak@...il.com>, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...el.com,
 oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] x86: Cure per CPU madness on UP

On Fri, Mar 15 2024 at 09:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 09:17, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> Without line numbers (if you have debug info for that kernel, it's
> good to run "scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh" on stack traces) it's hard
> to really know what's up, but I strongly suspect that it's this:
>
>         rapl_pmus->pmus[topology_logical_die_id(cpu)] = pmu;
>
> because we have
>
>    topology_logical_die_id(cpu) ->
>        (cpu_data(cpu).topo.logical_die_id)
>
> and we have
>
>     c->topo.logical_die_id = topology_get_logical_id(apicid, TOPO_DIE_DOMAIN);
>
> and topology_get_logical_id() does this:
>
>         if (lvlid >= MAX_LOCAL_APIC)
>                 return -ERANGE;
>         if (!test_bit(lvlid, apic_maps[at_level].map))
>                 return -ENODEV;
>
> so that -ENODEV is not entirely unlikely for a UP run.
>
> This also explains why it *used* to work - that whole thing is new to
> the current merge window and came in through commit ca7e91776912
> ("Merge tag 'x86-apic-2024-03-10' of ...").
>
> Thomas, over to you. I wonder if maybe all those topology macros
> should just return 0 on an UP build, but that
> topology_get_logical_id() thing looks a bit wrong regardless.
>
> It really shouldn't depend on local apic data for configs that may not
> *have* a local apic.

Right. Let me look.