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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:44:51 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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?

* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:

> Cons: It's a bit odd to merge code that can't be enabled as-is.  OTOH
> x86 could plausibly enable it for 4.8 if Ingo is okay with applying
> "x86/dumpstack: Pin the target stack in save_stack_trace_tsk()" and
> "x86: Move thread_info into task_struct" during the merge window after
> the -mm patchbomb lands.

There's quite a few risky stuff piled up already so I'd prefer if we delayed these 
core bits and the enablement to v4.9.

We can carry these core bits in -tip as well, can create a tip:sched/thread_info 
tree for it and such. I'd prefer that because this way we have natural proximity 
between patch application, testing and eventual fixes.

Then we can expose -next to all these changes as a single, bisectable group of 
commits and, should anything overly catastrophic happen, remove it and regroup our 
forces.

This would really be the best approach I think, since I'd like to default-enable 
all this on x86 from the very beginning.

Thanks,

	Ingo