linux-kernel - Re: [POWERPC][v2] Bolt in SLB entry for kernel stack on secondary cpus

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1209770383.26383.5.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sat, 03 May 2008 09:19:43 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POWERPC][v2] Bolt in SLB entry for kernel stack on secondary
	cpus


On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 19:03 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> David Gibson writes:
> 
> > Do you even need the processor ID test at all?  The boot processor
> > should always have its stack covered by SLB entry 0 when we come
> > through here, shouldn't it?
> 
> I was concerned that get_paca()->kstack wouldn't have been initialized
> by the time the boot cpu calls slb_initialize().  If that fear is
> unfounded then the check could go.

No, you are correct, it's not initialized. However, I find that a bit
weird, as we shouldn't have a problem initializing it in
start_here_multiplatform rather than start_here_common.

The whole stack setup part of these here seems like a dup to me.

Ben.


--
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/