[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:09:53 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
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 11:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:52:58AM -0700, 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.
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> So the attached patch seems to be the right thing to do regardless of
>> this whole discussion.
>
> Yeah, that looks fine. Want me to take it or will you just commit?
PeterZ, mind if I split it into a couple of patches, test it, and add
it to my series?
--Andy
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.
