[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090904071524.0a7267ce@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:15:24 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base
is cache aligned
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 23:18:05 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * 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
the other issue is that afaik we want the kernel to use the other
register than userspace does...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
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