linux-kernel - Re: cpu_init is called during resume

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]

Message-ID: <44F70A4B.4090803@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:11:55 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cpu_init is called during resume

Pavel Machek wrote:
> cpu_init() is called during resume, at time when GFP_KERNEL is not
> available. This silences warning, and adds few small cleanups.
>   

I presume this is resume from disk.  If you're doing resume from RAM, 
all the CPU-related stuff should already be allocated, unless you're 
bringing up a new CPU which wasn't previously there, right?

What's the call path for this on resume?  In my i386-pda patches, I've 
rearranged this so that the secondary CPU's GDT (and PDA) are 
pre-allocated on the boot CPU.  Does this help this case, or would they 
still need to be atomic allocations?

And wouldn't making these allocations atomic make real CPU hotplug (ie, 
on an active, running system) more likely to fail?  This code doesn't 
deal with allocation failure very elegantly.

    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/