linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/24] openrisc: head: refactor out tlb flush into it's own function

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: <20170224192056.GO2449@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
Date:   Sat, 25 Feb 2017 04:20:56 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
To:     Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>
Cc:     Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>, linux@...ck-us.net,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/24] openrisc: head: refactor out tlb flush into
 it's own function

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 03:54:02PM +0200, Stefan Kristiansson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:48:10PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> > On 02/24/2017 11:54 AM, Stefan Kristiansson wrote:
> > >eOn Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> > >>On 02/24/2017 05:32 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > >>>From: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>
> > >>>
> > >>>This brings it inline with the other setup oprations done like the cache
> > >>>enables _ic_enable and _dc_enable.  Also, this is going to make it
> > >>>easier to initialize additional cpu's when smp is introduced.
> > >>This patch confuses me.  The TLB flush is moved to a point after MMU's are
> > >>enabled.  The TLB flush should happen before enabling the MMU, shouldn't it?
> > >>
> > >It still happens before the MMUs are enabled, the patch only refactors the code
> > >out into a function that is called from the place where it was open coded
> > >before.
> > 
> > Right.  What's the point of moving it then?
> > 
> 
> As the commit message mentions, it's a preparation patch for initialisation
> of secondary cpus, which also will call this function.
> 
> Perhaps this patch should be bundled with those patches.
> 

Thanks for replying on this patch, I think keeping this patch here is
ok.  Since part of the theme of this series is preparing for SMP (which
will be another big series) I think its ok have any non SMP specific
work into here.  Its going to make my life a bit easier going forward.

Also, as this is good refactor to get it structurally in sync with other
initializations I think its not completely out of place.

-Stafford