[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080709131405.54f9d49b@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:14:05 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
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
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:00:19 -0700
ebiederm@...ssion.com (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.
and so does gcc in kernel mode.
>
> 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.
stopping buffer overflows and other return address corruption is not
useful? Excuse me?
>
> So we don't we kill the broken CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR. Stop trying
> to figure out how to use a zero based percpu area.
So why don't we NOT do that and fix instead what you're trying to do?
>
> 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 what does that gain us?
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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