From: "Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: re@w6rz.net, linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Out-of-bounds access when hartid >= NR_CPUS
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:28:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1714720.9tEa3Li8Nu@diego> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdW7NCC3siVp6avaTRffrdFr+OMXvLeGzdHZJOg+B5aGJw@mail.gmail.com>
Am Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2021, 10:57:26 CEST schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:53 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2021, 08:44:31 CEST schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 2:37 AM Ron Economos <re@w6rz.net> wrote:
> > > > On 10/25/21 8:54 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > When booting a kernel with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4 on Microchip PolarFire,
> > > > > the 4th CPU either fails to come online, or the system crashes.
> > > > >
> > > > > This happens because PolarFire has 5 CPU cores: hart 0 is an e51,
> > > > > and harts 1-4 are u54s, with the latter becoming CPUs 0-3 in Linux:
> > > > > - unused core has hartid 0 (sifive,e51),
> > > > > - processor 0 has hartid 1 (sifive,u74-mc),
> > > > > - processor 1 has hartid 2 (sifive,u74-mc),
> > > > > - processor 2 has hartid 3 (sifive,u74-mc),
> > > > > - processor 3 has hartid 4 (sifive,u74-mc).
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume the same issue is present on the SiFive fu540 and fu740
> > > > > SoCs, but I don't have access to these. The issue is not present
> > > > > on StarFive JH7100, as processor 0 has hartid 1, and processor 1 has
> > > > > hartid 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu_ops.c has:
> > > > >
> > > > > void *__cpu_up_stack_pointer[NR_CPUS] __section(".data");
> > > > > void *__cpu_up_task_pointer[NR_CPUS] __section(".data");
> > > > >
> > > > > void cpu_update_secondary_bootdata(unsigned int cpuid,
> > > > > struct task_struct *tidle)
> > > > > {
> > > > > int hartid = cpuid_to_hartid_map(cpuid);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Make sure tidle is updated */
> > > > > smp_mb();
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(__cpu_up_stack_pointer[hartid],
> > > > > task_stack_page(tidle) + THREAD_SIZE);
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(__cpu_up_task_pointer[hartid], tidle);
> > > > >
> > > > > The above two writes cause out-of-bound accesses beyond
> > > > > __cpu_up_{stack,pointer}_pointer[] if hartid >= CONFIG_NR_CPUS.
> > > > >
> > > > > }
>
> > > https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/riscv-privileged-v1.10.pdf
> > > says:
> > >
> > > Hart IDs might not necessarily be numbered contiguously in a
> > > multiprocessor system, but at least one hart must have a hart
> > > ID of zero.
> > >
> > > Which means indexing arrays by hart ID is a no-go?
> >
> > Isn't that also similar on aarch64?
> >
> > On a rk3399 you get 0-3 and 100-101 and with the paragraph above
> > something like this could very well exist on some riscv cpu too I guess.
>
> Yes, it looks like hart IDs are similar to MPIDRs on ARM.
and they have the set_cpu_logical_map construct to map hwids
to a continuous list of cpu-ids.
So with hartids not being necessarily continuous this looks like
riscv would need a similar mechanism.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-26 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-25 15:54 Out-of-bounds access when hartid >= NR_CPUS Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-10-26 0:37 ` Ron Economos
2021-10-26 6:44 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-10-26 8:53 ` Heiko Stübner
2021-10-26 8:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-10-26 9:28 ` Heiko Stübner [this message]
2021-10-27 23:34 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-28 15:09 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2021-10-28 16:12 ` Heiko Stübner
2021-10-28 16:21 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-28 17:16 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2021-10-28 23:40 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-26 8:55 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-26 9:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-10-28 1:28 ` Atish Patra
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=1714720.9tEa3Li8Nu@diego \
--to=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=re@w6rz.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).