Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail | From | Rusty Russell <> | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:23:52 +1100 |
| |
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 08:59 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:48 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Rusty's pda->per_cpu patch will deal with this once and for all; have > > > > Not on x86-64. > > Indeed. Perhaps it's time I join the modern world and compile a 64-bit > kernel... > > Will prepare patches,
No, I don't think I will. The PDA concept has gone too far in x86-64 to be undone. In particular, it's been put in GCC 4.1 for CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, which assumes %gs:40 will give the stack canary.
For the record: the PDA should never have existed, that's what percpu vars were supposed to be for. Something went wrong here 8(
%gs is best set to the offset of the local cpu's area from the "master" per-cpu area, not set to the local cpu area's address. In the former case, booting with %gs at offset 0 works naturally, in the latter case, hoops need to be jumped through to make it work. See how much nicer the x86 code is post pda->percpu conversion.
So, even if we leave the PDA and place the per-cpu area immediately after it, we still can't use "%gs:var" to access a per-cpu variable: we need to do a subtract, so why bother using the segment reg?
The ideal solution has always been to use __thread, but no architecture has yet managed it (I tried for i386, and it quickly caused unbearable pain). On x86-64 that uses "%fs" on x86-64, not "%gs" as the kernel does, but I might try that if I feel particularly masochistic soon...
In summary, containing the PDA infection to x86-64 is possible, but curing that patient is non-trivial 8)
Rusty.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |