[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9727c41-8278-7b83-e5e1-61268dc768d5@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:01:58 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idle/x86: remove the call to boot_init_stack_canary()
from cpu_startup_entry()
On 19/10/2018 11:29, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> commit d7880812b359 ("idle: Add the stack canary init to
> cpu_startup_entry()") added the call to boot_init_stack_canary()
> in cpu_startup_entry() in an #ifdef CONFIG_X86 statement, with
> the intention to remove that #ifdef later.
>
> While implementing stack protector for powerpc, it has been
> observed that calling boot_init_stack_canary() is also needed
> for powerpc which uses per task (TLS) stack canary like the X86.
>
> However, calling boot_init_stack_canary() would break arches
> using global stack canary (ARM, SH, MIPS and XTENSA).
>
> Instead of adding modifying the #ifdef in a
> implemented the call to boot_init_stack_canary() in the function
> calling cpu_startup_entry()
I can't parse this sentence.
>
> On x86, we have two functions calling cpu_startup_entry():
> - start_secondary()
> - cpu_bringup_and_idle()
>
> start_secondary() already calls boot_init_stack_canary().
>
> This patch adds the call to boot_init_stack_canary() in
> cpu_bringup_and_idle() and removes it from cpu_startup_entry()
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
With the commit message made understandable you can add my
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists