Hi,
> The check for init is just because we haven't set the magic value for
> init's stack right? But we could.
Yeah, it's similar to what x86 are doing now:
commit 0e7810be30f66e9f430c4ce2cd3b14634211690f
Author: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@novell.com>
Date: Fri Nov 20 14:00:14 2009 +0000
x86: Suppress stack overrun message for init_task
init_task doesn't get its stack end location set to
STACK_END_MAGIC, and hence the message is confusing
rather than helpful in this case.
Adding it directly to init_task would be nice but I suspect we'd
either have to make assumptions about end_of_stack in our code or move the
canary into the thread_info (so we can statically allocate it via
INIT_THREAD_INFO()) or do it at runtime somewhere, hopefully early enough that
we couldn't take an oops.
Anton
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
