Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Skip discovery table for offline dies

["Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com>]

On 1/13/2026 6:31 PM, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
> 
> On 1/14/2026 4:56 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>
>> Tested-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>
>> ---
>> V2:
>> - Add the Tested-by tag
>> - Rebase onto perf/core (base commit: a491c02c2770)
>>
>>  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 4684649109d9..c126a29ab729 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
>> @@ -1368,6 +1368,10 @@ 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()))
>> +				continue;
> 
> I'm thinking if we need to add "WARN_ON" here. Since all uncore units that
> the die id is larger than uncore_max_dies() would be skipped in discovery
> phase, the unit die id should be not larger than uncore_max_dies() in
> uncore_pci_pmus_register(). Is it right?


I originally added this as a defensive check in case it could trigger an
array overflow.

However, I agree it can be dropped since this condition should not be
reachable.



>> +
>>  			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 b46575254dbe..0e414cecb6f2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
>> @@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ static bool uncore_discovery_pci(struct uncore_discovery_domain *domain)
>>  				     (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(domain, dev, die, bar_offset, &parsed);