REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2268
In current implementation, when check whether APs called by StartUpAllAPs
or StartUpThisAp, it checks the Tokens value used by other APs. Also the AP
will update the Token value for itself if its task finished. In this
case, the potential race condition issues happens for the tokens.
Because of this, system may trig ASSERT during cycling test.
This change enhance the code logic, add new attributes for the token to
remove the reference for the tokens belongs to other APs.
Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
---
UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c | 125 +++++++--------------
UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm.h | 5 +-
2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c
index 757f1056f7..5ad12db980 100644
--- a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c
+++ b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c
@@ -402,38 +402,6 @@ IsPresentAp (
*(mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Present));
}
-/**
- Check whether execute in single AP or all APs.
-
- Compare two Tokens used by different APs to know whether in StartAllAps call.
-
- Whether is an valid AP base on AP's Present flag.
-
- @retval TRUE IN StartAllAps call.
- @retval FALSE Not in StartAllAps call.
-
-**/
-BOOLEAN
-InStartAllApsCall (
- VOID
- )
-{
- UINTN ApIndex;
- UINTN ApIndex2;
-
- for (ApIndex = mMaxNumberOfCpus; ApIndex-- > 0;) {
- if (IsPresentAp (ApIndex) && (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[ApIndex].Token != NULL)) {
- for (ApIndex2 = ApIndex; ApIndex2-- > 0;) {
- if (IsPresentAp (ApIndex2) && (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[ApIndex2].Token != NULL)) {
- return mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[ApIndex2].Token == mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[ApIndex].Token;
- }
- }
- }
- }
-
- return FALSE;
-}
-
/**
Clean up the status flags used during executing the procedure.
@@ -445,40 +413,17 @@ ReleaseToken (
IN UINTN CpuIndex
)
{
- UINTN Index;
- BOOLEAN Released;
+ PROCEDURE_TOKEN *Token;
- if (InStartAllApsCall ()) {
- //
- // In Start All APs mode, make sure all APs have finished task.
- //
- if (WaitForAllAPsNotBusy (FALSE)) {
- //
- // Clean the flags update in the function call.
- //
- Released = FALSE;
- for (Index = mMaxNumberOfCpus; Index-- > 0;) {
- //
- // Only In SMM APs need to be clean up.
- //
- if (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Present && mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Token != NULL) {
- if (!Released) {
- ReleaseSpinLock (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Token);
- Released = TRUE;
- }
- mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Token = NULL;
- }
- }
- }
- } else {
- //
- // In single AP mode.
- //
- if (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token != NULL) {
- ReleaseSpinLock (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token);
- mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token = NULL;
- }
+ Token = mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token;
+
+ WaitForSemaphore (&Token->RunningApCount);
+
+ if (Token->RunningApCount == 0) {
+ ReleaseSpinLock (Token->SpinLock);
}
+
+ mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token = NULL;
}
/**
@@ -912,12 +857,14 @@ APHandler (
*mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Status = ProcedureStatus;
}
+ if (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token != NULL) {
+ ReleaseToken (CpuIndex);
+ }
+
//
// Release BUSY
//
ReleaseSpinLock (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Busy);
-
- ReleaseToken (CpuIndex);
}
if (SmmCpuFeaturesNeedConfigureMtrrs()) {
@@ -1111,7 +1058,7 @@ IsTokenInUse (
while (!IsNull (&gSmmCpuPrivate->TokenList, Link)) {
ProcToken = PROCEDURE_TOKEN_FROM_LINK (Link);
- if (ProcToken->ProcedureToken == Token) {
+ if (ProcToken->SpinLock == Token) {
return TRUE;
}
@@ -1124,16 +1071,18 @@ IsTokenInUse (
/**
create token and save it to the maintain list.
+ @param RunningApCount Input running AP count.
+
@retval return the spin lock used as token.
**/
-SPIN_LOCK *
+PROCEDURE_TOKEN *
CreateToken (
- VOID
+ IN UINT32 RunningApCount
)
{
PROCEDURE_TOKEN *ProcToken;
- SPIN_LOCK *CpuToken;
+ SPIN_LOCK *SpinLock;
UINTN SpinLockSize;
TOKEN_BUFFER *TokenBuf;
UINT32 TokenCountPerChunk;
@@ -1160,20 +1109,21 @@ CreateToken (
gSmmCpuPrivate->UsedTokenNum = 0;
}
- CpuToken = (SPIN_LOCK *)(gSmmCpuPrivate->CurrentTokenBuf + SpinLockSize * gSmmCpuPrivate->UsedTokenNum);
+ SpinLock = (SPIN_LOCK *)(gSmmCpuPrivate->CurrentTokenBuf + SpinLockSize * gSmmCpuPrivate->UsedTokenNum);
gSmmCpuPrivate->UsedTokenNum++;
- InitializeSpinLock (CpuToken);
- AcquireSpinLock (CpuToken);
+ InitializeSpinLock (SpinLock);
+ AcquireSpinLock (SpinLock);
ProcToken = AllocatePool (sizeof (PROCEDURE_TOKEN));
ASSERT (ProcToken != NULL);
ProcToken->Signature = PROCEDURE_TOKEN_SIGNATURE;
- ProcToken->ProcedureToken = CpuToken;
+ ProcToken->SpinLock = SpinLock;
+ ProcToken->RunningApCount = RunningApCount;
InsertTailList (&gSmmCpuPrivate->TokenList, &ProcToken->Link);
- return CpuToken;
+ return ProcToken;
}
/**
@@ -1246,6 +1196,8 @@ InternalSmmStartupThisAp (
IN OUT EFI_STATUS *CpuStatus
)
{
+ PROCEDURE_TOKEN *ProcToken;
+
if (CpuIndex >= gSmmCpuPrivate->SmmCoreEntryContext.NumberOfCpus) {
DEBUG((DEBUG_ERROR, "CpuIndex(%d) >= gSmmCpuPrivate->SmmCoreEntryContext.NumberOfCpus(%d)\n", CpuIndex, gSmmCpuPrivate->SmmCoreEntryContext.NumberOfCpus));
return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
@@ -1278,14 +1230,12 @@ InternalSmmStartupThisAp (
AcquireSpinLock (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Busy);
- if (Token != NULL) {
- *Token = (MM_COMPLETION) CreateToken ();
- }
-
mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Procedure = Procedure;
mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Parameter = ProcArguments;
if (Token != NULL) {
- mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token = (SPIN_LOCK *)(*Token);
+ ProcToken= CreateToken (1);
+ mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token = ProcToken;
+ *Token = (MM_COMPLETION)ProcToken->SpinLock;
}
mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Status = CpuStatus;
if (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Status != NULL) {
@@ -1343,6 +1293,7 @@ InternalSmmStartupAllAPs (
{
UINTN Index;
UINTN CpuCount;
+ PROCEDURE_TOKEN *ProcToken;
if ((TimeoutInMicroseconds != 0) && ((mSmmMp.Attributes & EFI_MM_MP_TIMEOUT_SUPPORTED) == 0)) {
return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
@@ -1371,7 +1322,10 @@ InternalSmmStartupAllAPs (
}
if (Token != NULL) {
- *Token = (MM_COMPLETION) CreateToken ();
+ ProcToken = CreateToken ((UINT32)mMaxNumberOfCpus);
+ *Token = (MM_COMPLETION)ProcToken->SpinLock;
+ } else {
+ ProcToken = NULL;
}
//
@@ -1392,7 +1346,7 @@ InternalSmmStartupAllAPs (
mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Procedure = (EFI_AP_PROCEDURE2) Procedure;
mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Parameter = ProcedureArguments;
if (Token != NULL) {
- mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Token = (SPIN_LOCK *)(*Token);
+ mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Token = ProcToken;
}
if (CPUStatus != NULL) {
mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[Index].Status = &CPUStatus[Index];
@@ -1408,6 +1362,13 @@ InternalSmmStartupAllAPs (
if (CPUStatus != NULL) {
CPUStatus[Index] = EFI_NOT_STARTED;
}
+
+ //
+ // Decrease the count to mark this AP as finished.
+ //
+ if (Token != NULL) {
+ WaitForSemaphore (&ProcToken->RunningApCount);
+ }
}
}
diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm.h b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm.h
index 5c1a01e42b..5c98494e2c 100644
--- a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm.h
+++ b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm.h
@@ -212,7 +212,8 @@ typedef struct {
UINTN Signature;
LIST_ENTRY Link;
- SPIN_LOCK *ProcedureToken;
+ SPIN_LOCK *SpinLock;
+ volatile UINT32 RunningApCount;
} PROCEDURE_TOKEN;
#define PROCEDURE_TOKEN_FROM_LINK(a) CR (a, PROCEDURE_TOKEN, Link, PROCEDURE_TOKEN_SIGNATURE)
@@ -407,7 +408,7 @@ typedef struct {
volatile VOID *Parameter;
volatile UINT32 *Run;
volatile BOOLEAN *Present;
- SPIN_LOCK *Token;
+ PROCEDURE_TOKEN *Token;
EFI_STATUS *Status;
} SMM_CPU_DATA_BLOCK;
--
2.23.0.windows.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#52491): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52491
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69226060/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> + WaitForSemaphore (&Token->RunningApCount);
> +
> + if (Token->RunningApCount == 0) {
> + ReleaseSpinLock (Token->SpinLock);
> }
1. if (InterlockedDecrement (&Token->RunningApCount) == 0) {
ReleaseSpinLock (Token->SpinLock);
}
We should avoid checking RunningApCount directly because it's possible
that AP#1 decrease the Count to 1 and before AP#1 checks the value against 0
the Count is decreased by AP#2 to 0. So that causes AP#1 and AP#2 call
ReleaseSpinLock() on the same SpinLock.
>
> + // Decrease the count to mark this AP as finished.
2. BSP is also handled here. So this comment is mis-leading.
>
> + //
>
> + if (Token != NULL) {
> + WaitForSemaphore (&ProcToken->RunningApCount);
3. The code is written correctly but improperly IMO.
Token is checked but ProcToken is deferenced.
I suggest you check ProcToken directly.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#52497): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52497
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69226060/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi Ray,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ni, Ray
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 3:38 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm:
> Remove dependence between APs
>
> >
> > + WaitForSemaphore (&Token->RunningApCount);
> > +
> > + if (Token->RunningApCount == 0) {
> > + ReleaseSpinLock (Token->SpinLock);
> > }
>
> 1. if (InterlockedDecrement (&Token->RunningApCount) == 0) {
> ReleaseSpinLock (Token->SpinLock);
> }
>
> We should avoid checking RunningApCount directly because it's possible
> that AP#1 decrease the Count to 1 and before AP#1 checks the value against
> 0
> the Count is decreased by AP#2 to 0. So that causes AP#1 and AP#2 call
> ReleaseSpinLock() on the same SpinLock.
>
[[Eric]] good comments, will update it in next version.
> >
> > + // Decrease the count to mark this AP as finished.
>
> 2. BSP is also handled here. So this comment is mis-leading.
[[Eric]] will enhance the comments in next version.
>
> >
> > + //
> >
> > + if (Token != NULL) {
> > + WaitForSemaphore (&ProcToken->RunningApCount);
>
> 3. The code is written correctly but improperly IMO.
> Token is checked but ProcToken is deferenced.
> I suggest you check ProcToken directly.
[[Eric]] The other place in this function all check the Token status then update code.
So this code consistent with other place. I will keep this code to keep consistent.
Thanks,
Eric
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#52499): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52499
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69226060/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.