linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] idle/x86: remove the call to boot_init_stack_canary() from cpu_startup_entry()
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:31:16 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <285fcf8852b5924cb01de00be1152ea617527c52.1539944940.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> (raw)

commit d7880812b359 ("idle: Add the stack canary init to
cpu_startup_entry()") added the call to boot_init_stack_canary()
in cpu_startup_entry() in an #ifdef CONFIG_X86 statement, with
the intention to remove that #ifdef later.

While implementing stack protector for powerpc, it has been
observed that calling boot_init_stack_canary() is also needed
for powerpc which uses per task (TLS) stack canary like the X86.

However, calling boot_init_stack_canary() would break arches
using global stack canary (ARM, SH, MIPS and XTENSA).

Instead of modifying the #ifdef CONFIG_X86 in an
 #if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_PPC), powerpc
implemented the call to boot_init_stack_canary() in the function
calling cpu_startup_entry()

On x86, we have two functions calling cpu_startup_entry():
- start_secondary()
- cpu_bringup_and_idle()

start_secondary() already calls boot_init_stack_canary().

This patch adds the call to boot_init_stack_canary() in
cpu_bringup_and_idle() and removes it from cpu_startup_entry()

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
---
 v2: Revised commit log (#if defined  had been droped by 'git commit')

 arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c |  1 +
 kernel/sched/idle.c   | 15 ---------------
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c
index e3b18ad49889..0e05e8e23998 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ static void cpu_bringup(void)
 asmlinkage __visible void cpu_bringup_and_idle(void)
 {
 	cpu_bringup();
+	boot_init_stack_canary();
 	cpu_startup_entry(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE);
 }
 
diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
index 16f84142f2f4..f5516bae0c1b 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -347,21 +347,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(play_idle);
 
 void cpu_startup_entry(enum cpuhp_state state)
 {
-	/*
-	 * This #ifdef needs to die, but it's too late in the cycle to
-	 * make this generic (ARM and SH have never invoked the canary
-	 * init for the non boot CPUs!). Will be fixed in 3.11
-	 */
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86
-	/*
-	 * If we're the non-boot CPU, nothing set the stack canary up
-	 * for us. The boot CPU already has it initialized but no harm
-	 * in doing it again. This is a good place for updating it, as
-	 * we wont ever return from this function (so the invalid
-	 * canaries already on the stack wont ever trigger).
-	 */
-	boot_init_stack_canary();
-#endif
 	arch_cpu_idle_prepare();
 	cpuhp_online_idle(state);
 	while (1)
-- 
2.13.3


             reply	other threads:[~2018-10-19 10:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-19 10:31 Christophe Leroy [this message]
2018-10-19 20:35 ` [PATCH v2] idle/x86: remove the call to boot_init_stack_canary() from cpu_startup_entry() Tyrel Datwyler
2018-10-26 12:10 ` kbuild test robot

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=285fcf8852b5924cb01de00be1152ea617527c52.1539944940.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).