linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] 4K stacks default, not a debug thing any more...?

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:	Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:54:38 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
Cc:	"Rene Herman" <rene.herman@...il.com>,
	"Bodo Eggert" <7eggert@....de>, "Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>,
	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"William Lee Irwin III" <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	"David Chinner" <dgc@....com>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] 4K stacks default, not a debug thing any more...?

> If at some point one of the pro-4k stacks crowd can prove that all
> code paths are safe, or introduce another viable alternative (such as
> Matt's idea for extending the stack dynamically), then removing the 8k
> stacks option makes sense.

Any x86-32 path unsafe with 4K stacks is almost certainly unsafe with 8K
stacks because the 8K stacks do not have seperate IRQ stack paths, so you
have the same space but split. It might be less predictable on 8K stacks
but it isn't absent.
-
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/