[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090903211805.GB12566@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 23:18:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com,
stable@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base
is cache aligned
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 09/03/2009 01:45 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> > Two problems:
> >
> > * gcc generates %gs: references for stack-protector, but we use %fs
> > for percpu data (because restoring %fs is faster if it's a null
> > selector; TLS uses %gs). I guess we could use %fs if
> > !CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, or %gs if we are using it (though that
> > has some fiddly ramifications for things like ptrace).
>
> Well, by touching two segments we're getting the worst of both
> worlds, so at least assuming some significant number of real-world
> deployments use CC_STACKPROTECTOR, we really don't want to
> pessimize that case too much.
Fedora has stackprotector enabled so it's used in a widespread way.
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