[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXYVYuz+SEfXacjojA8bShWZaMafSqJaGTPqZ2adDv+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:52:40 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 45/51] x86: remove 64-byte gap at end of irq stack
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> There has been a 64-byte gap at the end of the irq stack for at least 12
> years. It predates git history, and I can't find any good reason for
> it. Remove it. What's the worst that could happen?
I can't think of any reason this would matter.
For that matter, do you have any idea why irq_stack_union is a union
or why we insist on sticking it at %gs:0? Sure, the *canary* needs to
live at a fixed offset (because GCC is daft, sigh), but I don't see
what that has to do with the rest of the IRQ stack.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists