diff mbox

[v3,05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT

Message ID 20160125102148.GE24726@rric.localdomain (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Robert Richter Jan. 25, 2016, 10:21 a.m. UTC 
On 23.01.16 17:39:20, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..f7f7533
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c

> +/* Callback for parsing of the Proximity Domain <-> Memory Area mappings */
> +int __init acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> +{
> +	u64 start, end;
> +	int node, pxm;
> +
> +	if (srat_disabled())
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {

Must be:

	ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {

Allow extensions to struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity in newer versions.

> +		bad_srat();
> +		return -EINVAL;

We need a pr_err() here to avoid that numa setup fails silently due to
bad fw. This applies to all error paths.

See my delta patch below. You can merge it with your patch.

-Robert

> +	}


From 78945c73e4ec03756a135a75133ed29694a7a0f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:53:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64, acpi, numa: Add error messages for bad SRAT tables

Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Hanjun Guo Jan. 27, 2016, 7:12 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 2016/1/25 18:21, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 23.01.16 17:39:20, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..f7f7533
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
>> +/* Callback for parsing of the Proximity Domain <-> Memory Area mappings */
>> +int __init acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
>> +{
>> +	u64 start, end;
>> +	int node, pxm;
>> +
>> +	if (srat_disabled())
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
> Must be:
>
> 	ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
>
> Allow extensions to struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity in newer versions.

Hmm, I think we need to remove the check here now.

There are three cases:

 - firmware ACPI version is consistent with the ACPICA one, then
   ma->header.length == sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )

 - firmware ACPI version is not consistent with the ACPICA one,
   for example, struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity is extended in
   new ACI version, but the formware is using the older one,
  then it's ok to use
  ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )

 - but if we use the older kernel + updated new firmware,
   then
   ma->header.length > sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )
  will be the case, right?

>
>> +		bad_srat();
>> +		return -EINVAL;
> We need a pr_err() here to avoid that numa setup fails silently due to
> bad fw. This applies to all error paths.
>
> See my delta patch below. You can merge it with your patch.

Thanks! I wil merge it into next version.

Hanjun


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Robert Richter Jan. 27, 2016, 2:01 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 27.01.16 15:12:15, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/1/25 18:21, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 23.01.16 17:39:20, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..f7f7533
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> >> +/* Callback for parsing of the Proximity Domain <-> Memory Area mappings */
> >> +int __init acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> >> +{
> >> +	u64 start, end;
> >> +	int node, pxm;
> >> +
> >> +	if (srat_disabled())
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
> > Must be:
> >
> > 	ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
> >
> > Allow extensions to struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity in newer versions.
> 
> Hmm, I think we need to remove the check here now.

No, we might have an out-of-bound access then.

> 
> There are three cases:
> 
>  - firmware ACPI version is consistent with the ACPICA one, then
>    ma->header.length == sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )
> 
>  - firmware ACPI version is not consistent with the ACPICA one,
>    for example, struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity is extended in
>    new ACI version, but the formware is using the older one,
>   then it's ok to use
>   ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )

The check above is ok as we need at least struct
acpi_srat_mem_affinity as it is now.

If we later change the kernel to support multiple versions of struct
acpi_srat_mem_affinity, i.e. use data from an extended section, we
will need to add code to handle that. This will include support of
data with length < acpi_srat_mem_affinity, in this case we may not use
extended data.

> 
>  - but if we use the older kernel + updated new firmware,
>    then
>    ma->header.length > sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )
>   will be the case, right?

Right, and this is a valid case not resulting in an error with my
suggestion above.

> 
> >
> >> +		bad_srat();
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> > We need a pr_err() here to avoid that numa setup fails silently due to
> > bad fw. This applies to all error paths.
> >
> > See my delta patch below. You can merge it with your patch.
> 
> Thanks! I wil merge it into next version.

Thanks,

-Robert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hanjun Guo Jan. 28, 2016, 3:16 a.m. UTC | #3 
On 2016/1/27 22:01, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 27.01.16 15:12:15, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2016/1/25 18:21, Robert Richter wrote:
>>> On 23.01.16 17:39:20, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..f7f7533
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
>>>> +/* Callback for parsing of the Proximity Domain <-> Memory Area mappings */
>>>> +int __init acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	u64 start, end;
>>>> +	int node, pxm;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (srat_disabled())
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
>>> Must be:
>>>
>>> 	ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
>>>
>>> Allow extensions to struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity in newer versions.
>> Hmm, I think we need to remove the check here now.
> No, we might have an out-of-bound access then.
>
>> There are three cases:
>>
>>  - firmware ACPI version is consistent with the ACPICA one, then
>>    ma->header.length == sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )
>>
>>  - firmware ACPI version is not consistent with the ACPICA one,
>>    for example, struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity is extended in
>>    new ACI version, but the formware is using the older one,
>>   then it's ok to use
>>   ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )
> The check above is ok as we need at least struct
> acpi_srat_mem_affinity as it is now.
>
> If we later change the kernel to support multiple versions of struct
> acpi_srat_mem_affinity, i.e. use data from an extended section, we
> will need to add code to handle that. This will include support of
> data with length < acpi_srat_mem_affinity, in this case we may not use
> extended data.

I checked the ACPI spec about memory affinity structure, it still have 10 bytes
reserved for future use, so I think it's safe as you suggested for next few years.

>
>>  - but if we use the older kernel + updated new firmware,
>>    then
>>    ma->header.length > sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity )
>>   will be the case, right?
> Right, and this is a valid case not resulting in an error with my
> suggestion above.

Yes, I just mixed up those two cases.

I will sync with Ganapat to prepare a new version and test it on x86 and
IA64 to make sure this patch set don't break anything.

Thanks
Hanjun

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
index f7f7533761cd..936ad6c43740 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
@@ -143,6 +143,8 @@  void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
 		return;
 
 	if (pa->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity)) {
+		pr_err("SRAT: Invalid SRAT header length: %d\n",
+			pa->header.length);
 		bad_srat();
 		return;
 	}
@@ -166,7 +168,7 @@  void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
 	}
 
 	if (get_mpidr_in_madt(pa->acpi_processor_uid, &mpidr)) {
-		pr_warn("SRAT: PXM %d with ACPI ID %d has no valid MPIDR in MADT\n",
+		pr_err("SRAT: PXM %d with ACPI ID %d has no valid MPIDR in MADT\n",
 			pxm, pa->acpi_processor_uid);
 		bad_srat();
 		return;
@@ -190,7 +192,9 @@  int __init acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
 	if (srat_disabled())
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
+	if (ma->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
+		pr_err("SRAT: Unexpected header length: %d\n",
+			ma->header.length);
 		bad_srat();
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -216,10 +220,17 @@  int __init acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
 		(unsigned long long) start, (unsigned long long) end - 1);
 
 	if (numa_add_memblk(node, start, (end - start)) < 0) {
+		pr_err("SRAT: Failed to add memblk to node %u [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+			node, (unsigned long long) start,
+			(unsigned long long) end - 1);
 		bad_srat();
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
+	pr_info("SRAT: Node %u PXM %u [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+		node, pxm,
+		(unsigned long long) start, (unsigned long long) end - 1);
+
 	return 0;
 }