linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps

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]

Date:	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:17:48 +0530
From:	Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@...il.com>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> wrote:
> i don't suppose we could have it say "[tid stack]" rather than "[stack]" ?  or
> perhaps even "[stack tid:%u]" with replacing %u with the tid ?

Why do we need to differentiate a thread stack from a process stack?
If someone really wants to know, the main stack is the last one since
it doesn't look like mmap allocates anything above the stack right
now.

I like the idea of marking all stack vmas with their task ids but it
will most likely break procps. Besides, I think it could be done
within procps with this change rather than having the kernel do it.

-- 
Siddhesh Poyarekar
http://siddhesh.in
--
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/