On 05/30/2014 08:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we removed struct thread_info from the stack allocation then one
>> could do a guard page below the stack. Of course, we'd have to use IST
>> for #PF in that case, which makes it a non-production option.
>
> We could just have the guard page in between the stack and the
> thread_info, take a double fault, and then just map it back in on
> double fault.
>
Oh, duh. Right, much better. Similar to the espfix64 hack, too.
> That would give us 8kB of "normal" stack, with a very loud fault - and
> then an extra 7kB or so of stack (whatever the size of thread-info is)
> - after the first time it traps.
>
> That said, it's still likely a non-production option due to the page
> table games we'd have to play at fork/clone time.
Still, seems much more tractable.
I would still like struct thread_info off the stack allocation for other
reasons (as we have discussed in the past.)
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
