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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:57:01 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
To:	Rusty Russell <>
CC:	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Zachary Amsden <>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andi Kleen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86 boot, pda and gdt cleanups

Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hmm, this invalidated my assumption that write_gdt_entry is always a
> write to this cpu's active gdt.  Better fix is not to call it twice
> anyway...

No, I don't think that's true.  I implemented the write_*_entry
functions with the assumption they could be called either on setup or on
an in-use entry.  I think its good policy to use it all the time anyway,
since the pv_ops backend might want to fiddle with the values on the way

I tried to avoid calling init_gdt twice, but it seemed cleaner to just
let it happen.

> Getting rid of the call in smp_prepare_boot_cpu currently works, but
> it's fragile:  __get_cpu_var(x) && per_cpu(x, smp_processor_id()) will
> differ, and changes made to __get_cpu_var(x) will vanish...

Yes.  I think its definitely a good idea to call init_gdt asap after
doing the percpu setup.

> Fortunately, UP doesn't have to call init_gdt at all, so I think it's
> better to place it in smp_prepare_boot_cpu only and then clean up the UP
> code.  I'll try now...
It doesn't?  The per-cpu gdt is the same as the boot gdt?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists