[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:12:16 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86,
core)
On 06/23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ugh. Looking around at this, it turns out that a great example of this
> kind of legacy issue is the debug_mutex stuff.
Heh ;) I am looking at it too.
> It uses "struct thread_info *" as the owner pointer, and there is _no_
> existing reason for it. In fact, in every single place it actually
> wants the task_struct, and it does task_thread_info(task) just to
> convert it to the thread-info, and then converts it back with
> "ti->task".
Even worse, this task is always "current" afaics, so
> So the attached patch seems to be the right thing to do regardless of
> this whole discussion.
I think we should simply remove this argument.
And probably kill task_struct->blocked_on? I do not see the point of
this task->blocked_on != waiter check.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
