linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] UML - Fix kernel stack size on x86

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

Date:	Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:20:24 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	uml-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] UML - Fix kernel stack size on x86_64

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:37:52 -0400 Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:00:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:50:55 -0400
> > Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > [ This is 2.6.22 material ]
> > > 
> > > Having KERNEL_STACK_ORDER in defconfig overrides the value provided by
> > > Kconfig, breaking UML/x86_64, which wants 2 page stacks.
> 
> > That means the Kconfig rules are wrong, surely?
> 
> I'm far from a Kconfig expert,

Me either.  I learn enough for the problem at hand, then instaforget it
again.  Kinda like perl.

> but what I have is
> 
> config KERNEL_STACK_ORDER
> 	int "Kernel stack size order"
> 	default 1 if 64BIT
> 	default 0 if !64BIT
> 
> which seems reasonably clear and simple...
> 

hm, OK, there's the problem.  This is an offered-to-the-user config option.

If you do

-	int "Kernel stack size order"
+	int

then this rule will no longer be offered to the user and `make oldconfig'
(actually anythingconfig) will override whatever happens to be in .config
for KERNEL_STACK_ORDER.

I'm not sure if that's actually what you want, but if the current situation
is that a random CONFIG_KERNEL_STACK_ORDER=0 left over in .config will
break the kernel at runtime then I think something sterner than editing
defconfig is needed?

-
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/