linux-kernel - Re: [External] [PATCH v2 0/5] x86-64: Remove global variables from boot

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]

Message-ID: <B1B02751-035E-478E-8A3B-FA4F852321CC@infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Feb 2023 22:19:56 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>
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] [PATCH v2 0/5] x86-64: Remove global variables from boot



On 25 February 2023 22:15:02 GMT, Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 25/02/2023 13:52, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Sat, 2023-02-25 at 13:33 +0000, Usama Arif wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yeah looks good! I am testing with the macro diff for tr_lock from
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/05e27a7a-1faa-944e-2764-6ab4d620fb8f@bytedance.com/.
>>> If it all works, happy for me to send out v12 with it?
>> 
>> I moved the macro definition up a little to put it between the .code16
>> and the .align, pushed it out as a commit on top of the above branch.
>> 
>> We'll collapse it into the 'Support parallel startup' patch, yes?
>> 
>
>Yes, collapsed with "Support parallel startup of secondary CPUs" patch. I think Thomas' solution to dealing with suspend might be better? So I was thinking of sending v12 on top of v6.2 release with the following diff over your branch (merged in the right commit ofcourse):

Nah, I think I prefer it as I had it. The new comment says it all.

>-       /*
>-        * Ensure the CPU knows which one it is when it comes back, if
>-        * it isn't in parallel mode and expected to work that out for
>-        * itself.
>-        */
>-       if (!(smpboot_control & STARTUP_PARALLEL_MASK))
>-               smpboot_control = smp_processor_id();

And since Brian's patches there is no "boot mode" any more.

>+       /* Force the startup into boot mode */