On 06/22, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Something like the patch below? Yes, I thought about this too.
>
> Yes, that patch (times 11 for all the architectures)
^^
Yes, yes, this is clear to me. But only a
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/21, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I understand. My point is that this check was invalidated by
> > > > stack-guard-page
> > > > a
On 06/21, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I understand. My point is that this check was invalidated by
> > > stack-guard-page
> > > a long ago, and this means that we add the user-visible chan
On 06/22/2017 04:07 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I understand. My point is that this check was invalidated by stack-guard-page
a long ago, and this means that we add the user-visible change now.
Yeah
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Hugh, Michal - I also merged Helge's drop-up cleanup, is there
> > anything I've missed? I think Oleg had something, but I can't recall
> > right now, and I might just have missed it.
>
> Well, I meant, perhaps we
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > I understand. My point is that this check was invalidated by
> > stack-guard-page
> > a long ago, and this means that we add the user-visible change now.
>
> Yeah. I guess we could consider
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I understand. My point is that this check was invalidated by stack-guard-page
> a long ago, and this means that we add the user-visible change now.
Yeah. I guess we could consider it an *old* regression that got fixed,
but if people starte
On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Now __do_page_fault() tries to expand the stack itself, and this check
> > fails.
>
> But we want that check to trigger and cause the access to fail.
> Accessing the stack below the stack pointer is w
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Now __do_page_fault() tries to expand the stack itself, and this check
> fails.
But we want that check to trigger and cause the access to fail.
Accessing the stack below the stack pointer is wrong.
Do you have a pointer to the report for
On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > - if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) <
> > regs->sp)) {
> > +if (0) if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) <
> > regs->sp)) {
>
> This sm
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the report: yes, this is the same one as Dave Jones
> > found yesterday, which is fixed by this patch posted last night:
>
> .. an
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> - if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) <
> regs->sp)) {
> +if (0) if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) <
> regs->sp)) {
This smells bad.
That test is not about grow-down or
On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Hugh, Michal - I also merged Helge's drop-up cleanup, is there
> anything I've missed? I think Oleg had something, but I can't recall
> right now, and I might just have missed it.
Well, I meant, perhaps we need a bit more changes to ensure that a new
GROWSDOWN v
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> Thanks for the report: yes, this is the same one as Dave Jones
> found yesterday, which is fixed by this patch posted last night:
.. and that patch is in current -git now, so hopefully we're a
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
>
> commit: 1be7107fbe18eed3e319a6c3e83c78254b693acb ("mm: larger stack guard
> gap, between vmas")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> in testcase: trinity
> with f
FYI, we noticed the following commit:
commit: 1be7107fbe18eed3e319a6c3e83c78254b693acb ("mm: larger stack guard gap,
between vmas")
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
in testcase: trinity
with following parameters:
runtime: 300s
test-description: Tr
16 matches
Mail list logo
