Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6a4ea3d21bfb4c692d257d3f38ba28c83f242dfc.camel@svanheule.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor assumptions
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        elver@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, vschneid@redhat.com,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date:   Sun, 03 Jul 2022 09:50:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220702133840.943817a7694406a135bb48a9@linux-foundation.org>
References: <cover.1656777646.git.sander@svanheule.net>
         <20220702133840.943817a7694406a135bb48a9@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.2 (3.44.2-1.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 13:38 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat,=C2=A0 2 Jul 2022 18:08:23 +0200 Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule=
.net> wrote:
>=20
> > On uniprocessor builds, it is currently assumed that any cpumask will
> > contain the single CPU: cpu0. This assumption is used to provide
> > optimised implementations.
> >=20
> > The current assumption also appears to be wrong, by ignoring the fact
> > that users can provide empty cpumask-s. This can result in bugs as
> > explained in [1].
>=20
> It's a little unkind to send people off to some link to explain the
> very core issue which this patchset addresses!=C2=A0 So I enhanced this
> paragraph:
>=20
> : The current assumption also appears to be wrong, by ignoring the fact t=
hat
> : users can provide empty cpumasks.=C2=A0 This can result in bugs as expl=
ained in
> : [1] - for_each_cpu() will run one iteration of the loop even when passe=
d
> : an empty cpumask.

Makes sense to add this, sorry for the inconvenience.

Just to make sure, since I'm not familiar with the process for patches goin=
g through the mm tree,
can I still send a v5 to move the last patch forward in the series, and to =
include Yury's tags?

Best,
Sander

> > This series introduces some basic tests, and updates the optimisations
> > for uniprocessor builds.
> >=20
> > The x86 patch was written after the kernel test robot [2] ran into a
> > failed build. I have tried to list the files potentially affected by th=
e
> > changes to cpumask.h, in an attempt to find any other cases that fail o=
n
> > !SMP. I've gone through some of the files manually, and ran a few cross
> > builds, but nothing else popped up. I (build) checked about half of the
> > potientally affected files, but I do not have the resources to do them
> > all. I hope we can fix other issues if/when they pop up later.
> >=20
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220530082552.46113-1-sander@svanheule=
.net/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202206060858.wA0FOzRy-lkp@intel.com/
>=20