From: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Mario Limonciello" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Penny Zheng <penny.zheng@amd.com>,
<stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/amd_node: Avoid divide by zero on virtualized systems
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 16:16:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <06ee9889-6b88-4016-a323-7081693ef86a@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260810144706.GC57095@yaz-khff2.amd.com>
On 2026-08-10 10:47, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>> On a virtualized system, the number of nodes does not have a
>> relationship to the number of roots. A Xen PVH dom0 can calculate
>> roots_per_node as 0, which crashes with a divide by zero in:
>>
>> if (count++ % roots_per_node)
>>
>> On a virtualized system, default the value to 1. The issue is seen with
>> Xen, but it could affect other systems.
>>
>> Fixes: 0a4b61d9c2e4 ("x86/amd_node: Fix AMD root device caching")
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
>
> I agree with the idea with some minor feedback below.
>
>> ---
>> X86_FEATURE_XENPV is only for PV, but this is observed with a PVH dom0.
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/amd_node.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_node.c b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_node.c
>> index ea553267e5fa..c5025e5291b6 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_node.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_node.c
>> @@ -286,6 +286,11 @@ static int __init amd_smn_init(void)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> roots_per_node = num_roots / num_nodes;
>> + if (roots_per_node == 0) {
>
> Can be '!roots_per_node'.
Sure.
>> + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Error detecting roots per node.\n");
>> + roots_per_node = 1;
>> + }
>
> I don't think this is necessarily a Firmware bug.
>
> Likewise, it can be a 'warning' rather than 'error'. I interpret 'error'
> as something known to be incorrect. This was my position before on this
> topic. But the various contrary reports changed my mind (even if they
> come from virtualization).
>
> Furthermore, I think 'warning' is more appropriate. It says "We found
> something unexpected. We're letting you (the user) know about it. And
> we'll mitigate it to avoid an error."
Makes sense to me. Boris suggested error in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260624192530.GGajwvKuhxbnHe0s42@fat_crate.local/
(I probably should have used Suggested-by.)
> Anyways, I just wanted to write out some thoughts since this topic has
> come up a few times.
>
> Possible rework for the above change:
>
> if (!roots_per_node && !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)
> pr_warn("Expected at least 1 root per AMD node.\n");
>
> roots_per_node = max(roots_per_node, 1);
>
> In any case, we should just go with a simple fix for the virt cases.
I'm okay with this. I'll wait to see if anyone chimes in further. If
not, I'll go with your approach and Suggested-by.
Thanks,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-10 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-06 16:01 [PATCH 0/2] x86/amd_node: Fixes for " Jason Andryuk
2026-08-06 16:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/amd_node: Remove smn_exclusive Jason Andryuk
2026-08-10 14:07 ` Yazen Ghannam
2026-08-11 14:19 ` Mario Limonciello
2026-08-12 19:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2026-08-13 13:40 ` Jason Andryuk
2026-08-13 23:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2026-08-14 13:37 ` Jason Andryuk
2026-08-14 18:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2026-08-06 16:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/amd_node: Avoid divide by zero on virtualized systems Jason Andryuk
2026-08-10 14:47 ` Yazen Ghannam
2026-08-10 20:16 ` Jason Andryuk [this message]
2026-08-11 8:21 ` David Laight
2026-08-11 21:23 ` Jason Andryuk
2026-08-12 7:11 ` David Laight
2026-08-12 19:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2026-08-13 15:56 ` Yazen Ghannam
2026-08-13 17:23 ` Borislav Petkov
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=06ee9889-6b88-4016-a323-7081693ef86a@amd.com \
--to=jason.andryuk@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=penny.zheng@amd.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yazen.ghannam@amd.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®