linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] guard page for stacks that grow upwards

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTinQ_0zGJnPHw7AMJ+q+oo4nmA9Z4irw8dqRH9S8@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:53:12 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] guard page for stacks that grow upwards

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Updated to match the new code - still not tested on pa-risc.

But the ia64 grows-up case is tested?

> The #ifdefs are ugly - suggestions welcome on how to make
> the code prettier.

One thing I've considered is to get rid of the CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
crap entirely in code, and instead just make the VM_GROWSUP #define be
0 for architectures that don't want it. The compiler should then just
automatically remove all the code that says

   if (vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSUP) {
     ...

and the code would look more straightforward. Hmm?

                    Linus
--
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/