Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1440698
| From | Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task_struct |
| Date | 2016-07-11 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rTL0l-ej-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rOqfT-8f8-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rOqfU-8f8-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <rTGk2-5Co-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <rTKQG-8n2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 07:55:17AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Jul 11, 2016 3:08 AM, "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:55:48PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > If an arch opts in by setting CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK_STRUCT, > > > then thread_info is defined as a single 'u32 flags' and is the first > > > entry of task_struct. thread_info::task is removed (it serves no > > > purpose if thread_info is embedded in task_struct), and > > > thread_info::cpu gets its own slot in task_struct. > > > > > > This is heavily based on a patch written by Linus. > > > > I've been considering how we'd implement this for arm64, and I suspect > > that we'll also need to fold our preempt_count into task_struct > > (following from the style of asm-generic/preempt.h). > > > > As far as I can see, we can't make our preempt-count a percpu variable > > as with x86, as our percpu ops themselves are based on disabling > > preemption. > > How do you intend to find 'current' to get to the preempt count > without first disabling preemption? Good point. For some reason I had convinced myself that it only mattered for RMW sequences, so evidently I hadn't considered things thoroughly enough. :( > > To that end, would it be possible to keep the thread_info definition per > > arch, even with CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK? > > In principal, yes, but could you alternatively put it in > thread_struct? My goal here is to encourage people to clean up their > use of thread_info vs thread_struct at the same time. For x86, that > cleanup was trivial -- most of the work was addressing relative to > current instead of the stack pointer, and that had to happen > regardless. I'm more than happy to do that, modulo the above permitting. Sorry for the noise! Thanks, Mark.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task_struct Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-07-11 12:10 +0200
Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task_struct Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-07-11 17:00 +0200
Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task_struct Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-07-11 17:10 +0200
Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task_struct Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-07-11 18:40 +0200
Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 26/29] sched: Allow putting thread_info into task_struct Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-07-11 18:50 +0200
csiph-web