[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1173838623.5443.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:17:03 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@....org.pl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:57 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:23:52PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > In particular, it's been put in GCC 4.1 for
> > CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, which assumes %gs:40 will give the stack
> > canary.
>
> Yes that was always ugly, but I don't know a better way.
Well, "%gs:__gcc_stack_protector" would have been better. We could have
defined __gcc_stack_protector as an absolute symbol (0x40) at the
moment, and made it a real per-cpu var later.
> > For the record: the PDA should never have existed, that's what percpu
> > vars were supposed to be for. Something went wrong here 8(
>
> PDA predates per cpu.
Indeed, but I should have converted it over back in 2003 (?) when the
per-cpu stuff went in 8(
> > The ideal solution has always been to use __thread, but no architecture
> > has yet managed it (I tried for i386, and it quickly caused unbearable
>
> I tried it too, but __thread is hopeless for kernel code
>
> > pain). On x86-64 that uses "%fs" on x86-64, not "%gs" as the kernel
> > does, but I might try that if I feel particularly masochistic soon...
>
> Then swapgs wouldn't work anymore (there is no swapfs)
Good point.
Thanks,
Rusty.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists