Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/boot/64: Use 'push' instead of 'call' in start_cpu()

From	hpa@zytor.com
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/boot/64: Use 'push' instead of 'call' in start_cpu()
Date	2016-12-14 20:30 +0100
Message-ID	<sOnpv-2DO-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sO8qu-1gQ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sOdgu-4cB-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On December 14, 2016 12:36:58 AM PST, tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf <tipbot@zytor.com> wrote:
>Commit-ID:  ec2d86a9b646d93f1948569f368e2c6f5449e6c7
>Gitweb:    
>http://git.kernel.org/tip/ec2d86a9b646d93f1948569f368e2c6f5449e6c7
>Author:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>AuthorDate: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:25:35 -0600
>Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>CommitDate: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:48:05 +0100
>
>x86/boot/64: Use 'push' instead of 'call' in start_cpu()
>
>start_cpu() pushes a text address on the stack so that stack traces
>from
>idle tasks will show start_cpu() at the end.  But it uses a call
>instruction to do that, which is rather obtuse.  Use a straightforward
>push instead.
>
>Suggested-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
>Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
>Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
>Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
>Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>Link:
>http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4d8a1952759721d42d1e62ba9e4a7e3ac5df8574.1481685203.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com
>Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>---
> arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
>index 90de288..1facaf4 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
>+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
>@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ ENTRY(start_cpu)
> 	 *	REX.W + FF /5 JMP m16:64 Jump far, absolute indirect,
> 	 *		address given in m16:64.
> 	 */
>-	call	1f		# put return address on stack for unwinder
>+	pushq	$1f		# put return address on stack for unwinder
> 1:	xorq	%rbp, %rbp	# clear frame pointer
> 	movq	initial_code(%rip), %rax
> 	pushq	$__KERNEL_CS	# set correct cs

This adds another relocation to the kernel.  I hope this is safe at this point in the code?
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Thread

[PATCH 1/2] x86/boot/64: use 'push' instead of 'call' in start_cpu() Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-12-14 04:30 +0100
  [tip:x86/urgent] x86/boot/64: Use 'push' instead of 'call' in  start_cpu() tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2016-12-14 09:40 +0100
    Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/boot/64: Use 'push' instead of 'call' in start_cpu() hpa@zytor.com - 2016-12-14 20:30 +0100
      Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/boot/64: Use 'push' instead of 'call' in  start_cpu() Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-12-14 21:20 +0100

csiph-web