kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160711150802.GB7691@leverpostej>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:08:03 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting
 thread_info into task_struct

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 07:55:17AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2016 3:08 AM, "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:55:48PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > If an arch opts in by setting CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK_STRUCT,
> > > then thread_info is defined as a single 'u32 flags' and is the first
> > > entry of task_struct.  thread_info::task is removed (it serves no
> > > purpose if thread_info is embedded in task_struct), and
> > > thread_info::cpu gets its own slot in task_struct.
> > >
> > > This is heavily based on a patch written by Linus.
> >
> > I've been considering how we'd implement this for arm64, and I suspect
> > that we'll also need to fold our preempt_count into task_struct
> > (following from the style of asm-generic/preempt.h).
> >
> > As far as I can see, we can't make our preempt-count a percpu variable
> > as with x86, as our percpu ops themselves are based on disabling
> > preemption.
> 
> How do you intend to find 'current' to get to the preempt count
> without first disabling preemption?

Good point.

For some reason I had convinced myself that it only mattered for RMW
sequences, so evidently I hadn't considered things thoroughly enough. :(

> > To that end, would it be possible to keep the thread_info definition per
> > arch, even with CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK?
> 
> In principal, yes, but could you alternatively put it in
> thread_struct?  My goal here is to encourage people to clean up their
> use of thread_info vs thread_struct at the same time.  For x86, that
> cleanup was trivial -- most of the work was addressing relative to
> current instead of the stack pointer, and that had to happen
> regardless.

I'm more than happy to do that, modulo the above permitting.

Sorry for the noise!

Thanks,
Mark.

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