linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1] x86, espfix: postpone the initialization of espfix stack for AP

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

Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:11:27 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] x86, espfix: postpone the initialization of espfix
 stack for AP

On 06/17/2015 02:04 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> It isn't *at all* obvious to me at least that if the GFP_KERNEL
>> allocation fails we may not get rescheduled on another CPU and/or get stuck.
>>
>> I'm starting to think that the right thing to do is to allocate these on
>> the CPU that is bringing up the other CPU, at the same time we allocate
>> the percpu area.  This won't affect offline CPUs.
> 
> Btw, as part of experimenting for something else, I was able to trigger
> this even on a guest here. It is an insane guest though: 16 NUMA nodes,
> with 8 cores each:
> 

Is this reliable?

	-hpa

--
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/