[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWp6y9WQJ6NvZFZa58=EkobdK7LYzRKk1hOCX-94ck=CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:24:07 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [off-list] a path toward killing thread_info
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 03:41:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> PeterZ, I'm thinking of adding task_ti_flags_ptr to directly find the
>> ti flags word given a task_struct * so the scheduler can use it. Does
>> that seem reasonable to you?
>
> What are you trying to do? Merge task_struct and thread_info?
Merge thread_struct and thread_info, actually. The only functional
thing that thread_info provides is a place for arches to stash stuff.
I also want to end the era of stack overflows smashing data structures
at a fixed offset.
If we kill thread_info (on x86, anyway) and enable virtually mapped
stacks (which I just emailed out v2 of), then a stack overflow will
just OOPS cleanly on x86 without clobbering anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists