[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150226114252.GA4593@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:42:52 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: get rid of KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >> I added that in and applied this patch.
> >
> > So this is not just slightly buggy, it's fundamentally
> > wrong as well as it removes the possibility of an RSP
> > value optimization from the 64-bit path, see my
> > previous mail.
>
> This is just trying to check that the function is
> executing on the per-thread stack. It was correct (and
> fairly heavily tested by Tony) wither KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET
> being nonzero, but we're checking the wrong page if
> KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET becomes zero.
>
> I don't think I understand your objection to this bit.
I object to the KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET removal patch you fixed
here, not to the add-on fix in particular (which is correct
in the context of that patch).
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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