Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:11:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: Oleg Nesterov <>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	"" <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>, Nadav Amit <>,
	Kees Cook <>, Brian Gerst <>,
	"" <>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <>, Jann Horn <>,
	Heiko Carstens <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86,

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 04:31:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/22, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Oleg, what do you think? Would it be reasonable to free the stack and
> > thread_info synchronously at exit time, clear the pointer (to catch
> > any odd use), and only RCU-delay the task_struct itself?
> I didn't see the patches yet, quite possibly I misunderstood... But no,
> I don't this we can do this (if we are not going to move ti->flags to
> task_struct at least).

Didn't we talk about using SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU for task_struct before?
If that is possible, a reuse in per-cpu cache is equally possible.

All we really want to guarantee is that the memory remains a
task_struct, it need not remain the same task, right?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.