From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: Use relative per-cpu offsets
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 12:03:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211114110305.GN174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMzpN2gbOzsmnAh330+zk+ZZQmk-xNdUdCar6WaPrvHtgzknTA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 11:54:19PM -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 8:18 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, at 4:40 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > > The per-cpu section is currently linked at virtual address 0, because
> > > older compilers hardcoded the stack protector canary value at a fixed
> > > offset from the start of the GS segment. Use a standard relative offset
> > > as the GS base when the stack protector is disabled, or a newer compiler
> > > is used that supports a configurable location for the stack canary.
> >
> > Can you explain the benefit? Also, I think we should consider dropping support for the fixed model like we did on x86_32.
>
> This patch probably makes more sense if we drop the fixed model, as
> that gets rid of alot of code that works around having to link the
> percpu section differently.
Can someone spell out these benefits please? To me having per-cpu start
at 0 makes perfect sense, how does not having that make things better?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-14 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-13 12:40 [PATCH 0/3] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements Brian Gerst
2021-11-13 12:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86-64: Use per-cpu stack canary if supported by compiler Brian Gerst
2021-11-13 12:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/relocs: Make absolute percpu relocations conditional Brian Gerst
2021-11-13 12:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: Use relative per-cpu offsets Brian Gerst
2021-11-14 1:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-11-14 4:24 ` H. Peter Anvin
2021-11-14 4:54 ` Brian Gerst
2021-11-14 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-11-14 18:29 ` Brian Gerst
2021-11-15 18:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-11-15 20:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211114110305.GN174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox