linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:00:33 -0400
From:	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.

In-Reply-To: <20060827084417.918992193@...p.org>

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:44:17 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> This patch implements per-processor data areas by using %gs as the
> base segment of the per-processor memory.

This changes the ABI for signals and ptrace() and that seems like
a bad idea to me.

And the way things are done now is so ingrained into the i386
kernel that I'm not sure it can be done.  E.g. I found two
open-coded implementations of current, one in kernel_fpu_begin()
and one in math_state_restore().

> - It also allows per-CPU data to be allocated as each CPU is brought
>   up, rather than statically allocating it based on the maximum number
>   of CPUs which could be brought up.

Can you describe what it is about the way things work now that
prevents dynamic allocation?

-- 
Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/