netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] libbpf: count present CPUs, not theoretically possible

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:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:06:54 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
CC:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "andrii.nakryiko@...il.com" <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] libbpf: count present CPUs, not theoretically
 possible



> On Sep 27, 2019, at 11:30 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
> 
> This patch switches libbpf_num_possible_cpus() from using possible CPU
> set to present CPU set. This fixes issues with incorrect auto-sizing of
> PERF_EVENT_ARRAY map on HOTPLUG-enabled systems.
> 
> On HOTPLUG enabled systems, /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible is going to
> be a set of any representable (i.e., potentially possible) CPU, which is
> normally way higher than real amount of CPUs (e.g., 0-127 on VM I've
> tested on, while there were just two CPU cores actually present).
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/present, on the other hand, will only contain
> CPUs that are physically present in the system (even if not online yet),
> which is what we really want, especially when creating per-CPU maps or
> perf events.
> 
> On systems with HOTPLUG disabled, present and possible are identical, so
> there is no change of behavior there.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index e0276520171b..45351c074e45 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -5899,7 +5899,7 @@ void bpf_program__bpil_offs_to_addr(struct bpf_prog_info_linear *info_linear)
> 
> int libbpf_num_possible_cpus(void)
> {
> -	static const char *fcpu = "/sys/devices/system/cpu/possible";
> +	static const char *fcpu = "/sys/devices/system/cpu/present";

This is _very_ confusing. "possible cpus", "present cpus", and "online 
cpus" are existing terminologies. I don't think we should force people 
to remember something like "By possible cpus, libbpf actually means 
present cpus". 

This change works if we call it "libbbpf_num_cpus()". However,  
libbpf_num_possible_cpus(), should mean possible CPUs. 

Thanks,
Song