linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86: Rename __{start,end}_init_task to __{start,end}_init

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a686dd76-276d-418a-be57-4e9e9b80a4b9@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:45:26 -0700
From: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86: Rename __{start,end}_init_task to
 __{start,end}_init_stack

On 3/13/2024 12:09 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 13.03.24 07:05, Xin Li (Intel) wrote:
>> The stack of a task has been separated from the memory of a task_struct
>> struture for a long time on x86, as a result __{start,end}_init_task no
>> longer mark the start and end of the init_task structure, but its stack
>> only.
>>
>> Rename __{start,end}_init_task to __{start,end}_init_stack.
>>
>> Note other architectures are not affected because __{start,end}_init_task
>> are used on x86 only.
>>

>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h 
>> b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> index 5dd3a61d673d..a168be99d522 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> @@ -399,13 +399,13 @@
>>   #define INIT_TASK_DATA(align)                        \
>>       . = ALIGN(align);                        \
>> -    __start_init_task = .;                        \
>> +    __start_init_stack = .;                        \
>>       init_thread_union = .;                        \
>>       init_stack = .;                            \
>> -    KEEP(*(.data..init_task))                    \
>> +    KEEP(*(.data..init_stack))                    \
> 
> Is this modification really correct?
> 

Good catch, I should not change it.

Thanks!
     Xin