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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:14:51 +0000
From:   Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>
To:     Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86-64: Remove global variables from
 boot



On 23/02/2023 14:24, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 8:44 AM David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 17:12 -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
>>> This is on top of the parallel boot v10 series.
>>>
>>> Remove the global variables initial_gs, initial_stack, and
>>> early_gdt_descr from the 64-bit boot code.  The stack, GDT, and GSBASE
>>> can be determined from the CPU number.
>>>
>>> Brian Gerst (6):
>>>    x86/smpboot: Use CPU number instead of APIC ID for single CPU startup
>>>    x86/smpboot: Use current_task to get idle thread
>>
>>
>> I think those first two should be folded into the 'x86/smpboot: Support
>> parallel startup of secondary CPUs' patch rather than follow-on
>> patches?
> 
> Yes, that makes sense.
> 
>>>    x86/smpboot: Remove initial_stack on 64-bit
>>>    x86/smpbppt: Remove early_gdt_descr on 64-bit
>>>    x86/smpboot: Remove initial_gs
>>>    x86/smpboot: Simplify boot CPU setup
>>
>> Those four probably make sense to come separately. For each of them,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
>>
>> I've pulled in the v10 series from Usama, squashed the first two as I
>> suggested, added the last four on top to do some testing:
>> https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/parallel-6.2-rc8-part1
> 
> Looks good.  I noticed a typo in the commit log of the last patch
> (dynammically -> dynamically).  Can you fix that or should I resend?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> --
> Brian Gerst

I have tested the branch on top of v6.2 release and sent it as v11. Have 
also fixed the typo.

Thanks,
Usama

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ