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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:16:38 +0000 From: "Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@...el.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "Maliszewski, Richard L" <richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, Xiaoyan Zhang <xiaoyan.zhang@...el.com>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@...el.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86: add a new SMP bring up way for tboot case > -----Original Message----- > From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@...or.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:02 AM > To: Ren, Qiaowei > Cc: Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar; x86@...nel.org; Maliszewski, Richard L; > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net; Xiaoyan > Zhang; Wei, Gang > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: add a new SMP bring up way for tboot case > > On 03/19/2013 07:14 PM, Ren, Qiaowei wrote: > > Any comments on this patch? > > > > Thanks, > > Qiaowei > > The biggest question is probably if we can use an existing hook of some sort. > > Overriding the apic method is probably not the right way to go, though. > tglx, do you have any opinions here? > If we can't use an existing hook, could you please give me any suggestion about other opinions here? > Furthermore, this really is not nice: > > > +int tboot_wake_up(int apicid, unsigned long sipi_vec) { > > + if (!tboot_enabled()) > > + return 0; > > + > > + if ((tboot->version < 6) || > > + !(tboot->flags & TB_FLAG_AP_WAKE_SUPPORT)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + tboot->ap_wake_addr = sipi_vec; > > + tboot->ap_wake_trigger = apicid; > > + > > + return 1; > > +} > > Not only don't you set boot_error for the code above it, but there is absolutely > no indication how that does its job (are those active operations? If so they > should use writel()), nor does it include any kind of synchronization. > Ok. I should add some comments to explain how that does its job. But I guess boot_error don't have to be set inside this function. Thanks, Qiaowei -- 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