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]

Message-ID: <487524A0.6020304@goop.org>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:50:40 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 1. it means pda references are invalid if their offsets are ever more 
> than CONFIG_PHYSICAL_BASE (which I do not think is likely, but still...)

Why?

As an aside, could we solve the problems by making CONFIG_PHYSICAL_BASE 
0 - putting the percpu variables as the first thing in the kernel - and 
relocating on load?  That would avoid having to make a special PT_LOAD 
segment at 0.  Hm, would that result in the pda and the boot params 
getting mushed together?

    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/