From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>,
Falcon Thomas <thomas.falcon@intel.com>,
Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Skip discovery table for offline dies
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:37:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b53854e-f407-4c58-badc-01327d2d4be0@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251029220711.57909-1-zide.chen@intel.com>
On 10/30/2025 6:07 AM, Zide Chen wrote:
> This warning can be triggered if NUMA is disabled and the system
> boots with fewer CPUs than the number of CPUs in die 0.
>
> WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 7257 at uncore.c:1157 uncore_pci_pmu_register+0x136/0x160 [intel_uncore]
>
> Currently, the discovery table continues to be parsed even if all CPUs
> in the associated die are offline. This can lead to an array overflow
> at "pmu->boxes[die] = box" in uncore_pci_pmu_register(), which may
> trigger the warning above or cause other issues.
>
> Reported-by: Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>
> Fixes: edae1f06c2cd ("perf/x86/intel/uncore: Parse uncore discovery tables")
> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 4 ++++
> arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> index ee586eb714ec..5c3aeea5c78d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> @@ -1380,6 +1380,10 @@ static void uncore_pci_pmus_register(void)
>
> for (node = rb_first(type->boxes); node; node = rb_next(node)) {
> unit = rb_entry(node, struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit, node);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(unit->die >= uncore_max_dies()))
Base on my understanding, it seems an valid situation which could happen.
If so, we'd better remove the WARN_on to avoid it mislead users. Thanks.
> + continue;
> +
> pdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(UNCORE_DISCOVERY_PCI_DOMAIN(unit->addr),
> UNCORE_DISCOVERY_PCI_BUS(unit->addr),
> UNCORE_DISCOVERY_PCI_DEVFN(unit->addr));
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> index 1bf6e4288577..d6aee12139f1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static bool intel_uncore_has_discovery_tables_pci(int *ignore)
> (val & UNCORE_DISCOVERY_DVSEC2_BIR_MASK) * UNCORE_DISCOVERY_BIR_STEP;
>
> die = get_device_die_id(dev);
> - if (die < 0)
> + if ((die < 0) || (die >= uncore_max_dies()))
> continue;
>
> parse_discovery_table(dev, die, bar_offset, &parsed, ignore);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-30 1:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-29 22:07 [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Skip discovery table for offline dies Zide Chen
2025-10-29 22:07 ` [PATCH 2/2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix die ID init and look up bugs Zide Chen
2025-10-30 1:39 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-10-30 5:17 ` Chen, Zide
2025-11-13 22:33 ` Steve Wahl
2025-10-30 1:37 ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2025-10-30 4:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Skip discovery table for offline dies Chen, Zide
2025-10-30 6:23 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-11-13 22:32 ` Steve Wahl
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=8b53854e-f407-4c58-badc-01327d2d4be0@linux.intel.com \
--to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=steve.wahl@hpe.com \
--cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
--cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
--cc=zide.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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