| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090322124818.GA31466@elte.hu> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:48:18 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, shai@...lex86.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: don't compile vsmp_64 for 32bit * Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:30AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> True, but by how much? 212 bytes, out of 7285943 bytes which > >> is very very small percentage wise. > > > >How does this eliminate the validity of the patch? > > > > It costs 212 bytes to leave is_vsmp_box() to not just be a dummy > no-op. Having is_vsmp_box() detect if the hardware is indeed vSMP, > is meaningful even when CONFIG_VSMP is not turned on. This is > because is_vsmp_box() is used to tell the kernel, that although > the cpus being used are supposed to have TSCs in sync, they are > not really in sync. This is because you cannot ensure TSCs won't > drift between multiple boards being aggregated on vSMP systems. > Take the case of distro kernels. Distro kernels typically do not > have CONFIG_X86_VSMP on. Due to the large internode cacheline > setting, CONFIG_VSMP would not be on on the generic distro > installer kernels. If is_vsmp_box() is a no-op, the generic distro > installer kernels will assume TSCs to be synched, which is bad. > Hence, it will be nice if, for the cost of 212 bytes, vsmp64.o be > compiled either unconditionally, OR conditionally for 64bit > architectures only. The question is, is 212 bytes out of 7285943 > bytes too expensive for the generic kernels? I hope not. Sorry - got distracted and forgot about this thread. The TSC quirk indeed looks required for your systems - you dont have a reliable TSC due to virtualization, right? Mind sending a patch (partial revert or so) against latest -tip that fixes that? Ingo -- 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