mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
To: Suchit Karunakaran <suchitkarunakaran@gmail.com>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <bp@alien8.de>,
	<dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <hpa@zytor.com>,
	<darwi@linutronix.de>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
	<ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
Cc: <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel: Fix always false range check in x86_vfm model matching
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 11:56:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a1044e00-8e61-4de5-b22a-3878920e471a@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250728180923.160966-1-suchitkarunakaran@gmail.com>

On 7/28/2025 11:09 AM, Suchit Karunakaran wrote:
> Fix a logic bug in early_init_intel() where a conditional range check:
>     (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE)
> was always false due to (PRESCOTT) being numerically greater than the
> upper bound (WILLAMETTE). This triggers: -Werror=logical-op: 
> logical ‘and’ of mutually exclusive tests is always false
> The fix corrects the constant ordering to ensure the range is valid:
>     (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT)
> 

Thank you for reporting this issue!

This is indeed a bug, but the resolution proposed here seems incorrect.

> Signed-off-by: Suchit Karunakaran <suchitkarunakaran@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> index 076eaa41b8c8..3ec1555cbdc3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  	if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
>  		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
>  		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC);
> -	} else if ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE) ||
> +	} else if ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT) ||
>  		   (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_CORE_YONAH  && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_IVYBRIDGE)) {
>  		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
>  	}

See commit fadb6f569b10 ("x86/cpu/intel: Limit the non-architectural
constant_tsc model checks")

The original check that this replaced is:

	if ((c->x86 == 0xf && c->x86_model >= 0x03) ||
		(c->x86 == 0x6 && c->x86_model >= 0x0e))
		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);

The first check is supposed to cover all P4 models starting with model 3
(INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT). In order to set an upper bound for Family 15, the
check should cover all models until model 6 (INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL) which
is the last model released in that family.

The error that I made was to use an incorrect upper bound. The actual
fix should be this:

s/INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE/INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL

> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>         if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
>                 set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
>                 set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC);
> -       } else if ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE) ||
> +       } else if ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL) ||
>                    (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_CORE_YONAH  && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_IVYBRIDGE)) {
>                 set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
>         }

Also, please add a
Fixes: fadb6f569b10 ("x86/cpu/intel: Limit the non-architectural
constant_tsc model checks")

Thanks,
Sohil


  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-28 18:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-28 18:09 Suchit Karunakaran
2025-07-28 18:56 ` Sohil Mehta [this message]
2025-07-29  4:17   ` Suchit Karunakaran

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=a1044e00-8e61-4de5-b22a-3878920e471a@intel.com \
    --to=sohil.mehta@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=darwi@linutronix.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=suchitkarunakaran@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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®