[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:17:41 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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 11:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
I'm committing these trivial non-semantic patches, I'm actually
running the kernel without any ti->task pointer now (the previous
patch I sent out).
So I'll do the mutex debug patch and the stack dump patch as just he
obvious cleanup patches.
Those are the "purely legacy reasons for a bad calling convention",
and I'm ok with those during the rc series to make it easier for
people to play around with this.
With he goal being that I'm hoping that we can then actually get rid
of this (at least on x86-64, even if we leave it in some other
architectures) in 4.8.
Linus
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.
