LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Mika Penttilä" <mika.penttila@nextfour.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Markus T Metzger <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>,
	"Ravi V . Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/vdso: Move out the CPU number store
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:03:48 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <696f744f-be19-8709-e037-d3703bdc8f0c@nextfour.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51587908-9652-6a8e-0e01-f387e3ae5852@zytor.com>

On 06/05/2018 08:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/04/18 20:57, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>
>> This won't work on X86-32 because it actually uses the segment limit with fs: access. So there 
>> is a reason why the lsl based method is X86-64 only.
>>
> 
> <thinks out loud>
> 
> Why does that matter in any shape, way, or form?  The LSL instruction
> doesn't touch any of the segment registers, it just uses a segment
> selector number.
> 
> <looks at code>
> 
> I see... we have a VERY unfortunate name collision: the x86-64
> GDT_ENTRY_PERC_PU and the i386 GDT_ENTRY_PERCPU are in fact two
> completely different things, with the latter being the actual percpu
> offset used by the kernel.
> 
> So yes, this patch is wrong, because the naming of the x86-64 segment is
> insane especially in the proximity of the  -- it should be something
> like GDT_ENTRY_CPU_NUMBER.
> 
> Unfortunately we probably can't use the same GDT entry on x86-32 and
> x86-64, because entry 15 (selector 0x7b) is USER_DS, which is something
> we really don't want to screw with.  This means i386 programs that
> execute LSL directly for whatever reason will have to understand the
> difference, but most of the other segment numbers differ as well,
> including user space %cs (USER_CS/USER32_CS) and %ds/%es/%ss (USER_DS).
> Perhaps we could bump down segments 23-28 by one and put it as 23, that
> way the CPU_NUMBER segment would always be at %ss+80 for the default
> (flat, initial) user space %ss.  (We want to specify using %ss rather
> than %ds, because it is less likely to be changed and because 64 bits,
> too, have %ss defined, but not %ds.)
> 
> <action item>
> 
> Rename the x86-64 segment to CPU_NUMBER, fixing the naming conflict.
> Add 1 to GDT entry numbers 23-28 for i386 (all of these are
> kernel-internal segments and so have no impact on user space).
> Add i386 CPU_NUMBER equivalent to x86-64 at GDT entry 23.
> Document the above relationship between segments.
> 
> OK, everyone?
> 
> 	-hpa
> 

Yes GDT_ENTRY_PER_CPU and GDT_ENTRY_PERCPU meaning two totally different things is really confusing,
the proposal seems ok to me!

--Mika

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-05  6:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-04 19:24 [PATCH 0/6] x86: infrastructure to enable FSGSBASE Chang S. Bae
2018-06-04 19:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86/fsgsbase/64: Introduce FS/GS base helper functions Chang S. Bae
2018-06-04 19:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86/fsgsbase/64: Make ptrace read FS/GS base accurately Chang S. Bae
2018-06-04 19:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86/fsgsbase/64: Use FS/GS base helpers in core dump Chang S. Bae
2018-06-04 19:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86/fsgsbase/64: Factor out load FS/GS segments from __switch_to Chang S. Bae
2018-06-04 19:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86/msr: write_rdtscp_aux() to use wrmsr_safe() Chang S. Bae
2018-06-04 19:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86/vdso: Move out the CPU number store Chang S. Bae
2018-06-05  3:57   ` Mika Penttilä
2018-06-05  4:44     ` Bae, Chang Seok
2018-06-05  5:19       ` Mika Penttilä
2018-06-05  5:36     ` H. Peter Anvin
2018-06-05  6:03       ` Mika Penttilä [this message]
2018-06-05 10:22       ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-06-13  6:53   ` [lkp-robot] [x86/vdso] ab1bcc4420: BUG:kernel_hang_in_boot_stage kernel 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=696f744f-be19-8709-e037-d3703bdc8f0c@nextfour.com \
    --to=mika.penttila@nextfour.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=markus.t.metzger@intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/vdso: Move out the CPU number store' \
    /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

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).