linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
	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: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] idle/x86: remove the call to boot_init_stack_canary() from cpu_startup_entry()
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:35:35 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <34e3d329-86bb-2194-0c8f-f2795aafd116@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <285fcf8852b5924cb01de00be1152ea617527c52.1539944940.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>

On 10/19/2018 03:31 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 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();

I think I saw from the kbuild test robot in your first pass that this is an implicit declaration. Quick look at my local git tree and I don't see an include for stackprotector.h in this file.

-Tyrel

>  	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)
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-19 20:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-19 10:31 [PATCH v2] idle/x86: remove the call to boot_init_stack_canary() from cpu_startup_entry() Christophe Leroy
2018-10-19 20:35 ` Tyrel Datwyler [this message]
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=34e3d329-86bb-2194-0c8f-f2795aafd116@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --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=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).