linux-kernel - Re: Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8?

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: <20160719112223.GA20476@leverpostej>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:22:41 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linux Arch Mailing List <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8?

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:47:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
> 
> There are four core patches needed for the THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK thing,
> and they apply cleanly to -mm now.  The x86 patch to flip the feature
> on does not apply cleanly anywhere because it depends on changes in
> -tip *and* in -mm.  I'd like to get all of this as well as the rest of
> the vmap-stacks stuff in by 4.9, but I'm wondering if it might make
> sense to get the core THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK stuff into -mm for 4.8
> instead.
> 
> Pros:
>  - It reduces the amount of core code that -tip will have to carry until 4.9.
>  - It may benefit other architectures.  Christian Borntraeger
> expressed an interest in enabling the feature for s390, but it'll be
> awkward for him until the core bit landed.  Similarly, arm64 seems to
> be interested.

This would probably be useful for arm64.

There's still a reasonable amount to figure out (e.g. [1,2]), so from my
PoV this is a nice-to-have, but there's no pressure.

Thanks,
Mark.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/11/193
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/11/483