linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 25/29] um: Stop conflating task_struct::stack with thread

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:40:48 -0400
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 25/29] um: Stop conflating task_struct::stack with thread_info

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>
> thread_info may move in the future, so use the accessors.
>
> [changelog written by Andy]
> Message-Id: <CA+55aFxvZhBu9U1cqpVm4frv0p5mqu=0TxsSqE-=95ft8HvCVA@...l.gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/um/ptrace_32.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/um/ptrace_32.c b/arch/x86/um/ptrace_32.c
> index ebd4dd6ef73b..14e8f6a628c2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/um/ptrace_32.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/um/ptrace_32.c
> @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ int peek_user(struct task_struct *child, long addr, long data)
>
>  static int get_fpregs(struct user_i387_struct __user *buf, struct task_struct *child)
>  {
> -       int err, n, cpu = ((struct thread_info *) child->stack)->cpu;
> +       int err, n, cpu = task_thread_info(child)->cpu;

Shouldn't this use task_cpu() like in patch 23?

--
Brian Gerst