linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: NUMA: debug invalid unused PXM value for CFMWs

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: <20250314165501.00000606@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:55:01 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
CC: Yuquan Wang <wangyuquan1236@...tium.com.cn>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
	<lenb@...nel.org>, <dave@...olabs.net>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	<alison.schofield@...el.com>, <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <rrichter@....com>,
	<bfaccini@...dia.com>, <rppt@...nel.org>, <haibo1.xu@...el.com>,
	<chenbaozi@...tium.com.cn>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: NUMA: debug invalid unused PXM value for CFMWs

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:38:24 -0400
Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:12:26AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:02:37 -0400
> > Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:09:07PM +0800, Yuquan Wang wrote:  
> > > > @@ -441,6 +441,11 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > > >  	start = cfmws->base_hpa;
> > > >  	end = cfmws->base_hpa + cfmws->window_size;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (srat_disabled()) {
> > > > +		pr_err("SRAT is missing or bad while processing CFMWS.\n");
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +    
> > > 
> > > I thought the srat was optional regardless of the presence of a CFMWS.
> > > Is this not the case?  
> > 
> > True in theory, but do we want to support it?
> > 
> > I'd vote no unless someone is shipping such a system and can't fix it up.
> > 
> > Jonathan
> >   
> 
> Well, this is really the patch trying to deal with that I suppose. The
> code here already states its creating 1 node per CFMWS in the absense of
> srat - but this patch just changes that and says "no nodes 4 u".  I
> don't think that's what we want either.

Under this specific set of circumstances, "no nodes 4 u" is
to me a perfectly valid answer.

Jonathan


> 
> ~Gregory