> ...
>> -     if (copy_to_user(uvalue, value, value_size) != 0)
>> +     if (copy_to_user(uvalue, value, min_t(u32, usize, value_size)) != 0)
>>               goto free_value;
> I think such approach won't actually fix anything. User space
> may lose some of the values and won't have any idea what was lost.
> I think we need to fix sample code to avoid using 
> and use /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible instead.
> I would argue that glibc should be fixed as well since relying on
> ls -d /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu[0-9]*|wc -l turned out to be incorrect.

Thanks for the feedback. I think glibc is correct. The
_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF presents the number of processors
configured/populated and is indeed "ls
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu[0-9]*|wc -l". This means the actual number
of CPUs installed on your system. On the other hand, the
num_possible_cpus() includes both the installed CPUs and the empty CPU
socket/slot, in order to support CPU hotplug.

As a example, one of my dual socket motherboard with 1 CPU installed has
# /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible
# /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu[0-9]*|wc -l
Note that these 12 cpus could be online/offline by
# echo 1/0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online
Even if it is offline, the entry is still there.

Thinking about another solution, maybe we should use
"num_present_cpus()" which means the configured/populated CPUs and the
value is the same as sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF). Consider:
1) cpuX is online/offline: the num_present_cpus() remains the same.
2) new cpu is hotplug into the empty socket: the num_present_cpus()
gets updates, and also the sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF).

+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)

        if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH ||
            map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY)
-               value_size = round_up(map->value_size, 8) * num_possible_cpus();
+               value_size = round_up(map->value_size, 8) * num_present_cpus();
                value_size = map->value_size;

Thanks. Regards,

Reply via email to