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: <Z9QxUNP2aqTGpnMJ@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:38:24 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
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, 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.

~Gregory