linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] x86: oprofile: remove NR_CPUS arrays in arch/x86/oprofile/nmi

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: <20080326065317.GH18301@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:53:17 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Philippe Elie <phil.el@...adoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] x86: oprofile: remove NR_CPUS arrays in
	arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c


* Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:

> Change the following arrays sized by NR_CPUS to be PERCPU variables:
> 
> 	static struct op_msrs cpu_msrs[NR_CPUS];
> 	static unsigned long saved_lvtpc[NR_CPUS];
> 
> Also some minor complaints from checkpatch.pl fixed.

thanks, applied.

> All changes were transparent except for:
> 
>  static void nmi_shutdown(void)
>  {
> +	struct op_msrs *msrs = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_msrs);
>  	nmi_enabled = 0;
>  	on_each_cpu(nmi_cpu_shutdown, NULL, 0, 1);
>  	unregister_die_notifier(&profile_exceptions_nb);
> -	model->shutdown(cpu_msrs);
> +	model->shutdown(msrs);
>  	free_msrs();
>  }
> 
> The existing code passed a reference to cpu 0's instance of struct 
> op_msrs to model->shutdown, whilst the other functions are passed a 
> reference to <this cpu's> instance of a struct op_msrs.  This seemed 
> to be a bug to me even though as long as cpu 0 and <this cpu> are of 
> the same type it would have the same effect...?

i dont think this has any real effect in practice (the model pointers 
are not expected to change across cpus on the same system) - but in any 
case i've promoted your observation to the main portion of the changelog 
so that we'll have notice of this.

(someone might want to play with simulating a weaker CPU on a secondary 
core, but we've got tons of other assumptions on CPU type symmetry.)

	Ingo
--
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/