[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160815154233.gquogzg24q3jtcdh@treble>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:42:33 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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 Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:52:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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.
Good question. I have no idea...
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists