Received: by 10.192.165.156 with SMTP id m28csp378839imm; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48hedxcB2yf62a6lvloFsyAARkTNd0rDWmbdEMEhjzdMKzdjwKJqlSKTLiHdbq0A+nbZ96J X-Received: by 10.99.102.196 with SMTP id a187mr2597572pgc.349.1523430416821; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:06:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1523430416; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=OoX5h6AjqJ2q5sV7tXFcvSp0wa+YRX/VRy8OG+s5St/79ZVlqvJRgCi7e4oa7sCQzc nT/oLu+bLPEldGo6Lw+hP57HAckCU+2pwR+Vkl+hBlqzrYcakmCHlUeEAGx2tsEc7MBm /2M2b3UPDM+cfZqncfUPYTarlUfc5k3vnyEbaQ8YTJDCXk/Bhw/dXJrShlhxgyI8O1Pu /hG5u/TI9BGsNX1efEVd2oyoqznqkU79U+8qKNCR3ihuEdavgzLbyA/sG4ddWltmcAeO JI/ZQkKC5Ri88AGL+DZ/2bNhspOJkxBgB0lroT64DZOuMoWdx7A2f/1YoyhRW8zynRkM Ldig== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=ic4yP+1z+HtXilDUMcH/BotRwX5BUK5foT3lJhd+xR0=; b=giy2b48bxqmzmvd+hM0ZuPMMgPKoi66KzLk6l0j9cJRKSSuNl0mHkRBPY2I3C/KcBg +/xP7hJwc9HnTVDrAxP5lck2T1+xa9qawKbNWNvlVbGhxnKnLr+xTbFntpnG8j9RHdkd bco1wyClj6mvKjMujTSET8VvIkEKos97e7iXH390R4tBNKnvQpFP3vcLq7d3KdAlps1x NYChP1BrVQl6KsguW9OH0WESL4fvMW1H5deZ9yeTwp42tCvXFCtVg67o9twbokhzQ7aP 6PyYU5MMeOh0k5mkSRbzeqjqLR8Tr27Njjd2GHJPMfAVCbY1DmOlqjaeqOU9IGlsBtDF kqmQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 89-v6si530382ple.451.2018.04.11.00.06.19; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752558AbeDKHCM (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 11 Apr 2018 03:02:12 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:17997 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752068AbeDKHCL (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2018 03:02:11 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,368,1503331200"; d="scan'208";a="38771560" Received: from bogon (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2018 15:01:59 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.83]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B6B4D0EFC7; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:01:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (10.167.226.106) by G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:01:55 +0800 Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/apic: Fix signedness bug in APIC ID validity checks To: , , , , , , References: <1523322966-10296-1-git-send-email-lirongqing@baidu.com> From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:01:54 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.106] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 77B6B4D0EFC7.AAF3F X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com X-Spam-Status: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, At 04/10/2018 10:51 PM, tip-bot for Li RongQing wrote: [...] > x86/apic: Fix signedness bug in APIC ID validity checks > > The APIC ID as parsed from ACPI MADT is validity checked with the > apic->apic_id_valid() callback, which depends on the selected APIC type. > > For non X2APIC types APIC IDs >= 0xFF are invalid, but values > 0x7FFFFFFF Today when I am reading "IntelĀ® 64 Architecture x2APIC Specification", I find that below in chapter 2.4.1: The APIC ID value of FFFF_FFFFH and the highest value corresponding to the imple-mented bit-width of the local APIC ID register in the system are reserved and cannot be assigned to any logical processor. Seems, FFFF_FFFFH is also invalid for X2APIC types, Shall we also do the validity check for X2APIC ID? acpi_parse_x2apic() ... /* Ignore invalid ID */ if (apic_id == 0xffffffff) return 0; ... Thanks, dou