From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754064AbcB2UHt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:07:49 -0500
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-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:07:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:06:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/20] idle: Move x86ism out of generic code
In-Reply-To: <20160229194810.GI14848@arm.com>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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