From: guohanjun@huawei•com (Hanjun Guo)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:16:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A98812.4060506@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160127140109.GQ24726@rric.localdomain>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-28 3:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-23 9:39 [PATCH v3 00/12] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64 Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 01/12] acpi, numa: Use pr_fmt() instead of printk Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 02/12] acpi, numa: Replace ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() with pr_debug() Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 03/12] acpi, numa: remove duplicate NULL check Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 04/12] acpi, numa: introduce ACPI_HAS_NUMA_ARCH_FIXUP Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 10:25 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-24 4:56 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT Hanjun Guo
2016-01-25 10:21 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-27 7:12 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-01-27 14:01 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-28 3:16 ` Hanjun Guo [this message]
2016-02-01 18:09 ` Robert Richter
2016-02-02 11:30 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-02-02 17:00 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-03-02 14:10 ` Matthias Brugger
2016-03-02 14:10 ` Matthias Brugger
2016-03-02 14:08 ` Matthias Brugger
2016-03-10 9:50 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 06/12] acpi, numa: Enable ACPI based NUMA on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
2016-01-29 16:37 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 07/12] acpi, numa: move acpi_numa_slit_init() to common place Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 08/12] arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk() Hanjun Guo
2016-01-25 9:34 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-27 6:20 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-03-09 12:27 ` Robert Richter
2016-03-10 10:10 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 09/12] x86, acpi, numa: cleanup acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init() Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 10/12] acpi, numa: move bad_srat() and srat_disabled() to common place Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 11/12] acpi, numa: remove unneeded acpi_numa=1 Hanjun Guo
2016-01-23 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 12/12] acpi, numa: reuse acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() Hanjun Guo
2016-01-25 10:26 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-27 6:15 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-01-27 14:18 ` Robert Richter
2016-01-28 2:48 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-01-28 13:31 ` Robert Richter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56A98812.4060506@huawei.com \
--to=guohanjun@huawei$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox