From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/20] idle: Move x86ism out of generic code
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:06:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602292105410.3638@nanos>
References: <20160226164321.657646833@linutronix.de> <20160226182340.242063758@linutronix.de> <CAMzpN2j=Nb25x6UQqa6r3UbWgrrhoRb-72U+zOFVA7RrqQ0Z3A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602292026050.3638@nanos> <20160229194810.GI14848@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:42435 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753209AbcB2UHq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:07:46 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20160229194810.GI14848@arm.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@mit.edu>, Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Will Deacon wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:35:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > > >         arch_cpu_idle_prepare();
> > > >         cpu_idle_loop();
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > Does this actually work with stack protector enabled?
> > > boot_init_stack_canary() is inlined while arch_cpu_idle_prepare() is
> > > not.
> > 
> > Stupid me. No it does of course not. I could have sworn that I tested that,
> > but obvioulsy not.
> > 
> > I drop that patch, but actually the real question is whether we can drop that
> > '#ifdef x86' around that boot_init_stack_canary() invocation.
> > 
> > AFAICT, neither arm, arm64 nor mips and sh call it on anything else than the
> > boot cpu. I can't see why that would be an issue on those architectures and
> > why it would be a problem if the boot cpu calls it again here.
> > 
> > CC'ed the relevant maintainers. Is there any issue with the patch below?
> 
> On arm[64], the canary is unfortunately global, so I don't think it would
> be safe to update it live like this without effectively stopping the
> machine and forcing everybody into idle.

Thanks for clarification.

       Thomas