linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, espfix: use spin

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55551E07.8080509@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2015 15:13:27 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, espfix: use spin_lock rather than mutex

On 05/14/2015 02:27 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Remove stable@ from CC.
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:29:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> We could allocate them on the boot CPU side and hand them over to the 
>> secondary CPU.
> 
> Yeah, something along those lines. I mean, they're allocated and in-use
> during the complete system lifetime, we might just as well allocate them
> all in one go. Btw, what's our allocator that early, memblock?
> 
> Still, what I find strange is why are we seeing this only now? Is it
> because it had to be a big box (cpu >= 128) or something else changed...?
> 

Quite probable.  You don't really want to allocate them until you know
if a CPU at least exists, though.

I like Ingo's suggestion of allocating them before CPU bringup on the
initiating CPU.

	-hpa


--
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/