linux-kernel - Re: [tip: sched/urgent] sched/isolation: Fix boot crash when maxcpus

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: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:13:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: sched/urgent] sched/isolation: Fix boot crash when maxcpus
 < first housekeeping CPU


* tip-bot2 for Oleg Nesterov <tip-bot2@...utronix.de> wrote:

> Another corner case is "nohz_full=0" on a machine with a single CPU or with
> the maxcpus=1 kernel argument. In this case non_housekeeping_mask is empty
> and tick_nohz_full_setup() makes no sense. And indeed, the kernel hits the
> WARN_ON(tick_nohz_full_running) in tick_sched_do_timer().
> 
> And how should the kernel interpret the "nohz_full=" parameter? It should
> be silently ignored, but currently cpulist_parse() happily returns the
> empty cpumask and this leads to the same problem.
> 
> Change housekeeping_setup() to check cpumask_empty(non_housekeeping_mask)
> and do nothing in this case.

So arguably the user meant NOHZ_FULL to be turned off - but it is de-facto 
already turned off by the fact that there's only a single CPU available, 
right?

Thanks,

	Ingo