[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48751A0D.5020107@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:05:33 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I just took a quick look at how stack_protector works on x86_64. Unless there is
> some deep kernel magic that changes the segment register to %gs from the ABI specified
> %fs CC_STACKPROTECTOR is totally broken on x86_64. We access our pda through %gs.
>
-mcmodel=kernel switches it to using %gs.
> Further -fstack-protector-all only seems to detect against buffer overflows and
> thus corruption of the stack. Not stack overflows. So it doesn't appear especially
> useful.
>
It's a bit useful. But at the cost of preventing a pile of more useful
unification work, not to mention making all access to per-cpu variables
more expensive.
> So we don't we kill the broken CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR. Stop trying to figure out
> how to use a zero based percpu area.
>
Yes, please.
> That should allow us to make the current pda a per cpu variable, and use %gs with
> a large offset to access the per cpu area. And since it is only the per cpu accesses
> and the pda accesses that will change we should not need to fight toolchain issues
> and other weirdness. The linked binary can remain the same.
>
Yes, and it would be functionally identical to the 32-bit code.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists