[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:46:41 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: 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 Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Ugh. Looking around at this, it turns out that a great example of this
> kind of legacy issue is the debug_mutex stuff.
Interestingly, the *only* other user of ti->task for a full
allmodconfig build of x86-64 seems to be
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
with the print_context_stack() -> print_ftrace_graph_addr() -> task =
tinfo->task chain.
And that doesn't really seem to want thread_info either. The callers
all have 'task', and have to generate thread_info from that anyway.
So this attached patch (which includes the previous one) seems to
build. I didn't actually boot it, but there should be no users left
unless there is some asm code that has hardcoded offsets..
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (11470 bytes)
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.
