Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 8:26 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:47 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for doing this series - it all looks pretty good from my
> > > > > > side and I've applied it experimentally to tip:x86/asm. I fixed up
> > > > > > the trivial details other reviewers and me noticed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the merge is tentative, it might still need a rebase if
> > > > > > some fundamental problem comes up - but let's see how testing goes
> > > > > > in -next.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if there would be any benefit if stack canary is put into
> > > > > struct pcpu_hot?
> > > >
> > > > It should definitely be one of the hottest data structures on x86, so
> > > > moving it there makes sense even if it cannot be measured explicitly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would have to be done with linker tricks, since you can't make the
> > > compiler use a struct member directly.
> >
> > Probably not worth it then?
> 
> Actually it wasn't so bad since we already had the hack for 
> __ref_stack_chk_guard.  Do you want the patches now or when the dust 
> settles on the original series?

We can add it now I suppose, while memories are fresh and all that.

Thanks,

	Ingo