linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)

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: <CALCETrVom9WFrVgBkbiomnFPggVfhBXRTYWYbzPaF1OdObh0Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:09:53 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:52:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Ugh. Looking around at this, it turns out that a great example of this
>> kind of legacy issue is the debug_mutex stuff.
>>
>> It uses "struct thread_info *" as the owner pointer, and there is _no_
>> existing reason for it. In fact, in every single place it actually
>> wants the task_struct, and it does task_thread_info(task) just to
>> convert it to the thread-info, and then converts it back with
>> "ti->task".
>>
>> So the attached patch seems to be the right thing to do regardless of
>> this whole discussion.
>
> Yeah, that looks fine. Want me to take it or will you just commit?

PeterZ, mind if I split it into a couple of patches, test it, and add
it to my series?

--Andy