[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93a0f043-d5f6-432f-ac37-266dd5bbe899@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:51:19 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/gcs: Don't call gcs_free() during flush_gcs()
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 03:47:44PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 12:40:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 06:34:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > Another caller of gcs_free() is deactivate_mm(). It's not clear to me
> > > when we need to free the shadow stack on this path. On the exit_mm()
> > > path for example we have mmput() -> exit_mmap() that takes care of
> > > unmapping everything. Similarly on the exec_mmap() path.
> > We need that one to clean up the GCS for threads that had it allocated
> > for compatibility, you can see the leak that results without it easily
> > with the glibc testsuite (or anything else that does threads, the glibc
> > tests just spot it). Most of the checking for arch_release_task_struct()
> > is verifying that deactivate_mm() is guaranteed to be called eveywhere
> > it's relevant, I need to page that back in.
> Makes sense. I think we should only keep gcs_free() in one place,
> ideally deactivate_mm() as that's more related to mm rather than the
> task_struct.
Yes, me too - I just need to double check.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists