From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:05:50 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/10] arm64: move thread_info off of the task stack In-Reply-To: References: <1476904234-9511-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <10401f46-cabc-23ec-a448-c377dbce7911@redhat.com> <20161024174840.GR15620@leverpostej> <20161024180941.GT15620@leverpostej> <20161024181548.GA8275@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20161025100550.GB8898@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:18:35AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:09:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> It's really crazy how broken a kernel can be yet still "work"; clearly > >> we better tests are needed. :/ > > > > Clearly we better grammar need too. :( > > Out of curiosity, what workflow would have tripped over the entry.S bug? There are two bugs: The issues in [1] would show up if you were attempting to use breakpoints or watchpoints -- we'd never disable the single step. The broken 're-entered irq stack' check [2] would be an issue if we were close to exhausting the stack -- we'd never switch to the IRQ stack when we take an IRQ in a kernel context. I'm not sure of a particular workload. Thanks, Mark. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-October/462932.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-October/462891.html