[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:22:31 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: vmalloced stacks on x86_64?
Is there any good reason not to use vmalloc for x86_64 stacks?
The tricky bits I've thought of are:
- On any context switch, we probably need to probe the new stack
before switching to it. That way, if it's going to fault due to an
out-of-sync pgd, we still have a stack available to handle the fault.
- Any time we change cr3, we may need to check that the pgd
corresponding to rsp is there. If now, we need to sync it over.
- For simplicity, we probably want all stack ptes to be present all
the time. This is fine; vmalloc already works that way.
- If we overrun the stack, we double-fault. This should be easy to
detect: any double-fault where rsp is less than 20 bytes from the
bottom of the stack is a failure to deliver a non-IST exception due to
a stack overflow. The question is: what do we do if this happens?
We could just panic (guaranteed to work). We could also try to
recover by killing the offending task, but that might be a bit
challenging, since we're in IST context. We could do something truly
awful: increment RSP by a few hundred bytes, point RIP at do_exit, and
return from the double fault.
Thoughts? This shouldn't be all that much code.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists