On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:07:36PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Anyway I'm not sure if this patch is safe. Hopefully Peter can judge
> this better...
>
> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: Stafford Horne <sho...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > init/main.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > index 8b1adb6e..d1ca7cb 100644
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -513,6 +513,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init start_kernel(void)
> > boot_cpu_state_init();
> > smp_prepare_boot_cpu(); /* arch-specific boot-cpu hooks */
> >
> > + jump_label_init();
> > build_all_zonelists(NULL, NULL);
> > page_alloc_init();
> >
> > @@ -526,8 +527,6 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init start_kernel(void)
> > parse_args("Setting init args", after_dashes, NULL, 0, -1, -1,
> > NULL, set_init_arg);
> >
> > - jump_label_init();
> > -
Urgh, that means auditing all archs that implement this. The thing
you're looking for is if the self-modifying code cruft can be done that
early.
x86 looks to be fine, because this is after setup_arch() which is
required for ideal_nops[] to be initialied and we use text_poke_early()
which doesn't really need anything else.
I've not gone through the other arches...
