MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrU2Ag1LNveFq88q54wCxCPLi5onCNZzkOD0A_N3x_x6Tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141118145234.GA7487@redhat.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1411181914020.3909@nanos>
	<20141118215540.GD35311@redhat.com>
	<20141119021902.GA14216@redhat.com>
	<CA+55aFw13opSu6ETXgVo1tjrP+1PLkbsiKewEqRgdBKyBKALWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141119145902.GA13387@redhat.com>
	<CA+55aFxBb+aH6GdhbWECkh+wDwsHv43O1ryy4u20O8Bk-oDz+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFym2UfWnXZw0NjA70Q575eybiAOUkx==3Ci+V43u1-ZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141119190215.GA10796@lerouge>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1411192251120.3909@nanos>
	<20141119225615.GA11386@lerouge>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1411200002330.3909@nanos>
	<CALCETrXyrk0VBbZy48nsUWnk82wFp6gpv_zw_F=3GKSDAR7T+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1411200059410.3909@nanos>
	<CALCETrXwjPKcCA6t=wjyKWZbREKFTF9E-n9eRa0C39R5O8Q0PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFxi5mNNXFH20AwrgOVsT1HyuU1a63VYm6m+j0jSVr4dGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALCETrU2Ag1LNveFq88q54wCxCPLi5onCNZzkOD0A_N3x_x6Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:07:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy8gzquS-RnjxO3aax8=TNcrm42zK_udpOMdzxSjTbcQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> I thought so for a while, too, but now I disagree.  On PGE hardware,
> it seems entirely possible that the new stack would be in the TLB even
> if it's not visible via cr3.  Then, as soon as the TLB entry expires,
> we double-fault.

Ahh. Good point.

> I don't want vmalloc to avoid low-order allocations -- I want it to
> have guard pages.  The fact that a user-triggerable stack overflow is
> basically root right now and doesn't reliably OOPS scares me.

Well, if you do that, you would have to make the double-fault handler
aware of the stack issue anyway, and then you could just do teh same
PGD repopulation that a page fault does and return (for the case where
you didn't overflow the stack, just had the page tables unpopulated -
obviously an actual stack overflow should do something more drastic).

                   Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/