linux-kernel - RE: linux-next: Tree for October 12 (scsi/bfa)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:44:44 -0700
From:	Jing Huang <huangj@...cade.COM>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Krishna Gudipati <kgudipat@...cade.com>,
	Maggie Zhang <xmzhang@...cade.COM>
Subject: RE: linux-next: Tree for October 12 (scsi/bfa)

>bfa has one function that probably uses too much stack space and a few
>others that might be a problem.
>
>With CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=1024:
>
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad_im.c:939: warning: the frame size of 1604 bytes is larger than
>1024 bytes
>
>and with CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=512:
>
>
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad.c: In function 'bfad_fcs_port_cfg':
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad.c:900: warning: the frame size of 676 bytes is larger than 512
>bytes
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad_im.c: In function 'bfad_im_supported_speeds':
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad_im.c:939: warning: the frame size of 1604 bytes is larger than
>512 bytes
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad_im.c: In function 'bfad_os_fc_host_init':
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfad_im.c:976: warning: the frame size of 736 bytes is larger than
>512 bytes
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_lport.c: In function
>'bfa_fcs_lport_fdmi_build_portattr_block':
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_lport.c:2010: warning: the frame size of 572 bytes is larger
>than 512 bytes
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_lport.c: In function 'bfa_fcs_lport_fdmi_build_rhba_pyld':
>drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_lport.c:1803: warning: the frame size of 784 bytes is larger
>than 512 bytes
>

For these specific cases, we declare some big data structures in the stack, which is not good
and I will fix them. But is general, is passing 512 stack size check a requirement? This seems
too strict for me since the default stack size is 8k.

>Also, there are many comment blocks that begin with "/**", which means "beginning
>of kernel-doc comment block" for Linux kernel code.  :(
>

Not aware of this convention. I will fix them. Thanks.


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