From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86,
 core)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:12:16 +0200
Message-ID: <20160623181215.GA17813@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1466466093.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <CA+55aFyahpuy94qqECj0ZA6oD3Vy0r=gY2cH8_dB1a-4XURV2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrUuG0-tGNQ5iAEO2_gaK1eUq7AoALoBeQKcOP8cvxr=eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFx480bxx7VAmFqdsVGHjoSav4eCvVpcx5ZSpBQuq+=1Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160623143126.GA16664@redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFwBL5ArLXZ0+YggTbp6Qon+OM+Foihe0yrQOmRRvu96VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160623170352.GA17372@redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFwHUw+6xEc-M+mZvwOxCsBD6zZDwyAQ-a_xupaH8py7cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFy54iDN56FDJAz3A8epRvKECVO+nL5LaMxdmKrFEOm05w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51260 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751198AbcFWSMV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:12:21 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFy54iDN56FDJAz3A8epRvKECVO+nL5LaMxdmKrFEOm05w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>

On 06/23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ugh. Looking around at this, it turns out that a great example of this
> kind of legacy issue is the debug_mutex stuff.

Heh ;) I am looking at it too.

> It uses "struct thread_info *" as the owner pointer, and there is _no_
> existing reason for it. In fact, in every single place it actually
> wants the task_struct, and it does task_thread_info(task) just to
> convert it to the thread-info, and then converts it back with
> "ti->task".

Even worse, this task is always "current" afaics, so

> So the attached patch seems to be the right thing to do regardless of
> this whole discussion.

I think we should simply remove this argument.

And probably kill task_struct->blocked_on? I do not see the point of
this task->blocked_on != waiter check.

Oleg.