On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:23:45AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:29:33 +0100 > Aaron Tomlin <atom...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:26:54AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > And has this been tested on parisc and metag, which use STACK_GROWSUP ? > > > I can't see how end_of_stack() as it's defined now could work on those > > > archs. > > > > AFAIU, dup_task_struct() has always done this explicitly. > > I see no reason why init_task requires special attention. > > > > I guess what I'm saying is, I can't see how the stack canary could have ever > detected any problems on parisc and metag. How did you test your patches on > x86?
Yes - under x86 only. > Maybe someone could run tests on those other archs. As I said, I can't see why it wouldn't work given dup_task_struct()'s behaviour. -- Aaron Tomlin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
