From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set bounds on what /proc/self/make-it-fail accepts.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:31:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140219223135.GB28876@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140219140021.f187b2cdc396dab44e680078@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:00:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I toyed with the idea of changing task_struct.make_it_fail to unsigned too,
> > but only realized I missed that after I'd sent out the diff.
>
> If we're touching the task_struct we could make it a bool.
>
> Or just a single bit(field). task_struct already has a bunch of
> bitfields in it (strangely, they aren't contiguous).
afaics, asides from brk_randomized, they're contiguous, and gcc dtrt..
unsigned int in_execve:1; /* 768:31 4 */
unsigned int in_iowait:1; /* 768:30 4 */
unsigned int no_new_privs:1; /* 768:29 4 */
unsigned int sched_reset_on_fork:1; /* 768:28 4 */
unsigned int sched_contributes_to_load:1; /* 768:27 4 */
So we could move the COMPAT_BRK ifdef and save 4 bytes for all the people still using libc5.
(Or those who are for some reason averse to heap randomization).
It's not really worth doing unless you're moving a bunch of other stuff around
in task_struct though, because as it is now, that struct has a bunch of alignment padding
& holes, so you're not going to save anything.
The other tricky part with reorganizing that struct is that so much of it is configurable.
Dave
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-19 22:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 22:06 [PATCH] Set bounds on what /proc/self/make-it-fail accepts Dave Jones
2014-02-18 22:32 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-18 23:27 ` Dave Jones
2014-02-19 13:48 ` Akinobu Mita
2014-02-19 21:37 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-19 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-19 21:55 ` Dave Jones
2014-02-19 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-19 22:07 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-19 22:31 ` Dave Jones [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140219223135.GB28876@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=akinobu.mita@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox