From: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>,
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 1/2] x86/amd_node: Remove smn_exclusive
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:37:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <95307ce5-e209-4df9-aba4-5fcb668533c0@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813235800.GAan5aCCfimjHRUV1O@fat_crate.local>
On 2026-08-13 19:58, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 09:40:33AM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>> On 2026-08-12 15:28, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:07:47AM -0400, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>>>> 'smn_exclusive' wasn't originally intended to be used for bounds
>>>> checking the array. But the original use is no longer needed, so it can
>>>> be removed.
>>>
>>> Why is it no longer needed? Apparently I didn't get that memo yet...
>>>
>>> 83518453074d ("x86/amd_node: Add SMN offsets to exclusive region access") is
>>> talking about the potential concurrent access. Why is that ok now all of
>>> a sudden?
>> 83518453074d set smn_exclusive after successfully calling
>> pci_request_config_region_exclusive(). smn_exclusive gated access in
>> __amd_smn_rw().
>>
>> Things moved around, and now pci_request_config_region_exclusive() is called
>> earlier. At the end of amd_smn_init(), either amd_roots == NULL and
>> smn_exclusive == false or amd_roots != NULL and smn_exclusive == true.
>> smn_exclusive is redundant, and amd_roots can just be used directly.
>
> So you want to use amd_roots to *also* *denote* whether exclusive SMN access
> is enabled. Then you need to at least put a comment in __amd_smn_rw() where
> you're testing it, what exactly that test means.
I'm not sure adding a comment is helpful. smn_exclusive lost its
usefulness between its introduction and now.
> Then, your patch has a Fixes: tag and CC:stable which means, it needs to go to
> all kernels but then I don't know what you're fixing.
In my original commit message I stated this removes a potential NULL deref:
"""
amd_smn_read/write() are exported functions around __amd_smn_rw(), so
they are always available even if amd_smn_init() fails. smn_exclusive
would prevent access __amd_smn_rw(), but it is placed too late. If
amd_smn_init() failed, amd_roots is NULL and __amd_smn_rw() will fault
over it. Replace smn_exclusive with directly checking amd_roots to
avoid the NULL pointer deref - writeerence.
"""
I will add something about how smn_exclusive became redundant.
> Looking at it more, you're basically fixing one more aspect of running the
> kernel as a Xen guest and it not having AMD roots exported.
If amd_smn_init() fails for any reason, __amd_smn_rw() will fault. It
was seen with Xen, but it is not a property of running on Xen.
> But what you really wanna do, IMNSVHO, you want to make your patch 2 be patch
> 1 and it can go to stable.
>
> Your patch 1 then becomes a simplification/cleanup patch which goes as patch
> 2 and doesn't need to be Cc:stable but it can be queued later, during the
> normal cycle.
Re-ordering is fine. With the divide by zero fix, then amd_smn_init()
succeeds in my test with Xen. So the other patch isn't needed in that
case, but it looked like a worthwhile fix. In the cover letter, I noted
accesses from amd_pmf_probe(), amd_pmc_probe(), and
acp_acp70_audio_probe() to __amd_smn_rw() on my test system. These are
called even if amd_smn_init() fails.
Regards,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-14 13:37 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 virtualized systems 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 [this message]
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
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=95307ce5-e209-4df9-aba4-5fcb668533c0@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®