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: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:38:24 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> To: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, apic: clean up handling of boot_cpu_physical_apicid in boot process On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:55:09AM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: [..] > ``bsp'' and ``boot cpu'' are different, but certainly they are close > for most of people who don't need to focus the difference. I agree. Especially this difference is becoming visible in kdump context where we skip BIOS and can trigger a fresh boot on an AP. Hatayama, I think distinguishing BSP and boot cpu makes sense and we also need to find a way to export this information to user space. So that we can figure out who is BSP and tell second kernel not to bring up that cpu. Initially we thought that cpu with "initial apicid" 0 is BSP. But Jerry from HP is reporting that on some of the machines he has, BSP does not have to have apic id 0. If that's the case, we don't have a reliable way to figure out which is BSP in the system. Or am I missing something? Thanks Vivek -- 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