linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses

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]

Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:18:01 -0500
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Note that the zero-based percpu problems are completely unrelated to
>> stackprotector. I was able to hit them with a stackprotector-disabled
>> gcc-4.2.3 environment.
> 
> The only reason we need to keep a zero-based pda is to support
> stack-protector.  If we drop drop it, we can drop the pda - and its
> special zero-based properties - entirely.


Another reason to use a zero based per cpu area is to limit the offset range. Limiting the offset range allows in turn to limit the size of the generated instructions because it is part of the instruction. It also is easier to handle since __per_cpu_start does not figure
in the calculation of the offsets.


--
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/