linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86 boot, pda and gdt cleanups

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:39:59 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86 boot, pda and gdt cleanups

Rusty Russell wrote:
> This is called "pissing in the corners".  Don't do it: we don't need to
> touch that code and I actually prefer the original anyway (explicit is
> *good*).  
>
> The habit of extracting cpu number once then using it is an optimization
> which we should be aiming to get rid of (it simply hurts archs with
> efficient per-cpu implementations).

No, that was for a reason.  I was worried about smp_processor_id() not
returning valid values between init_gdt and cpu_set_gdt.  It's not
actually a problem, but relying on smp_processor_id() while we're moving
the foundations its based on seems fragile.

    J
-
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/