Quoting Nathan Lynch (nathanl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > > + parent_tid_ptr = (int *)kca.parent_tid_ptr; > > + child_tid_ptr = (int *)kca.child_tid_ptr; > > + > > + stack_size = (unsigned long)kca.child_stack_size; > > + child_stack = (unsigned long)kca.child_stack_base; > > + if (child_stack) > > + child_stack += stack_size; > > Should this calculation not be of the form: > child_stack = arch_dependent_alignment(child_stack + stack_size - 1) > ? > > Is overflow a concern? > > Same questions apply to the x86 version. Hmm... if the stack isn't valid, the task will just segfault, so it's not dangerous for the kernel, right? Note that for instance arch/s390/kernel/process.c:SYS_clone() doesn't check the validity of the new stack pointer passed in either. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
