expand_stack(vma) fails if address < stack_guard_gap even if there is no
vma->vm_prev.  I don't think this makes sense, and we didn't do this
before the recent commit 1be7107f ("mm: larger stack guard gap,
between vmas").

We do not need a gap in this case, any address is fine as long as
security_mmap_addr() doesn't object.

This also simplifies the code, we know that address >= prev->vm_end and
thus underflow is not possible.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170628175258.GA24881@redhat.comSigned-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>