linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/12] smp: Do not mark call_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: <D35EA688-7FCA-4D64-8C9E-9303827BC582@vmware.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 17:50:33 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/12] smp: Do not mark call_function_data as
 shared

> On May 31, 2019, at 3:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:36:40PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> cfd_data is marked as shared, but although it hold pointers to shared
>> data structures, it is private per core.
>> 
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>> index 6b411ee86ef6..f1a358f9c34c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ struct call_function_data {
>> 	cpumask_var_t		cpumask_ipi;
>> };
>> 
>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct call_function_data, cfd_data);
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_function_data, cfd_data);
> 
> Should that not be DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED() then?

Yes. I don’t know what I was thinking. I’ll change it.