[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyKxNZQtCS3VY_8qMS4B=q-ar5ST8RdCTwAC07ZOkBjQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:51:35 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
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>,
"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 Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I think I have a few new places to look at..
Yeah, making the 'stack' pointer be 'unsigned long *' rather than
'void *' shows a number of places where we were very confused about
things.
And in particular, the init_task stack initialization initialized it
to the init_thread pointer. Which was definitely deadly.
Let's see if that was it..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists