[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyu=G09-Qg=M-7CmAudS1Mj+OZMPNerd9VfUwvNk8VL+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:40:46 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> But as mentioned, I must have missed something. There were a number of
> places where the code used the task_stack_page() and
> task_thread_info() interchangably, which used to work and is no longer
> true. There might simply be cases I missed.
.. and immediately as I wrote that, I went "Duh".
One place I missed was free_thread_info(), which should now free the
stack, not the ti pointer. But it does
struct page *page = virt_to_page(ti);
and frees that, which is bogus. It turns out that we do do
free_thread_info(tsk->stack);
which is bogus too, and undoes it, but I think I have a few new places
to look at..
Linus
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.
