On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 06:09:39PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/8/31 16:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 01:58:16PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
> >> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
> >>
> >> This optional object is used to describe proximity domain
> >> associations within a machine. _PXM evaluates to an integer
> >> that identifies a device as belonging to a Proximity Domain
> >> defined in the System Resource Affinity Table (SRAT).
> >
> > That's just words.. what does it actually mean?
>
> It means the dev_to_node(dev) may return -1 if the bios does not
> implement the proximity domain feature, user may use that value
> to call cpumask_of_node and cpumask_of_node does not protect itself
> from node id being -1, which causes out of bound access.
> >> @@ -69,6 +69,12 @@ extern const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node);
> >> /* Returns a pointer to the cpumask of CPUs on Node 'node'. */
> >> static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> >> {
> >> + if (node >= nr_node_ids)
> >> + return cpu_none_mask;
> >> +
> >> + if (node < 0 || !node_to_cpumask_map[node])
> >> + return cpu_online_mask;
> >> +
> >> return node_to_cpumask_map[node];
> >> }
> >> #endif
> >
> > I _reallly_ hate this. Users are expected to use valid numa ids. Now
> > we're adding all this checking to all users. Why do we want to do that?
>
> As above, the dev_to_node(dev) may return -1.
>
> >
> > Using '(unsigned)node >= nr_nods_ids' is an error.
>
> 'node >= nr_node_ids' can be dropped if all user is expected to not call
> cpumask_of_node with node id greater or equal to nr_nods_ids.
you copied my typo :-)
> From what I can see, the problem can be fixed in three place:
> 1. Make user dev_to_node return a valid node id even when proximity
> domain is not set by bios(or node id set by buggy bios is not valid),
> which may need info from the numa system to make sure it will return
> a valid node.
>
> 2. User that call cpumask_of_node should ensure the node id is valid
> before calling cpumask_of_node, and user also need some info to
> make ensure node id is valid.
>
> 3. Make sure cpumask_of_node deal with invalid node id as this patchset.
>
> Which one do you prefer to make sure node id is valid, or do you
> have any better idea?
>
> Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
1) because even it is not set, the device really does belong to a node.
It is impossible a device will have magic uniform access to memory when
CPUs cannot.
2) is already true today, cpumask_of_node() requires a valid node_id.
3) is just wrong and increases overhead for everyone.
