On 10/10/2014 09:25 AM, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 04:23 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>> Sure, but I still think that we are safe here.
>>>>
>> No, you're not. Dropping a single CPU changes num_online_cpus(), which results in
>>
>> static uint8_t adf_get_dev_node_id(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> {
>> unsigned int bus_per_cpu = 0;
>> struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(num_online_cpus() - 1); <<< this
>> being different.
>>
>> if (!c->phys_proc_id)
>> return 0;
>>
>> bus_per_cpu = 256 / (c->phys_proc_id + 1); <<< this being different
>>
>> if (bus_per_cpu != 0)
>> return pdev->bus->number / bus_per_cpu; <<< and this being different
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> You forgot to explain how this is not safe.
Sorry, I thought I did explain it. My apologies.
So let's say you boot the system and load the driver. At this time,
num_online_cpus@boot = 4 . Crunch through the math above, and you reference the
cpuinfo_x86 struct for cpu 3 (the "fourth" cpu), and the calculation takes into
account c->phys_proc_id.
So let's say now you boot the system and disable a cpu. In this case, now
num_online_cpus@module_load = 3. Crunch through the math above and you're
referncing a different cpuinfo_x86 struct for cpu 2. That may or may not point
at the same c->phys_proc_id. That changes the calculation and gives an
incorrect value.
In addition to that I haven't even talked about the possibility of hot-adding
and hot-removing cpus in sockets which changes the numbering scheme completely.
In short, that calcuation is wrong. Don't use it; stick with the widely
accepted and used dev_to_node of the pci_dev. It is used in other cases IIRC to
determine the numa location of the device. It shouldn't be any different for
this driver.
P.
> T.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
