From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Peng Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: avoid invalid phys_proc_id reference Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:52:47 +0800 Message-ID: <20150713095247.GK3333@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com> References: <1436758586-20860-1-git-send-email-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> <55A3992B020000780009004D@mail.emea.novell.com> Reply-To: Chao Peng Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55A3992B020000780009004D@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, dario.faggioli@citrix.com, keir@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 13.07.15 at 05:36, wrote: > > phys_proc_id is invalidated in remove_siblinginfo() which gets called > > before cpu_smpboot_free(). This means calling cpu_to_socket(cpu) in > > cpu_smpboot_free() is not possible to be correct. > > > > This patch invokes remove_siblinginfo() in cpu_smpboot_free(), > > immediately after the use for cpu_to_socket(cpu). > > You having picked that variant of the two I proposed, did you verify > that (as I said when talking about the alternative) there are no > hidden dependencies? If you didn't, or if for whatever else reason > there is any doubt, the less intrusive variant should be chosen at > least for now. I just did some basic tests but I don't think I can conclude that I verified all the cases. Because of this, I'm glad to follow your advice to have a gentle fix. Chao