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]

Message-ID: <469BF768.6040200@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:55:36 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
CC:	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...?

On 07/17/2007 12:37 AM, Ray Lee wrote:

> On 7/16/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> wrote:

>> Seeing as how single-page stacks are much easier on the VM so that 
>> creating those zillion threads should also be faster, at _some_
>> percentage we get to say "and now to hell with the rest".
> 
> This is the core dispute here. Stated differently, I hope you never
> design a bridge that I have to drive over.
> 
> Correctness first, optimization second. Introducing random and
> difficult to trace crashes upon an unsuspecting audience of sysadmins
> and users is not a viable option.

Quite. But unfortunately you didn't actually go into the bit on how given 
seperate interrupt stacks, available stackspace might not actually _be_ less 
after selecting CONFIG_4KSTCKS nor into Fedora and RHEL shipping it already.

> If at some point one of the pro-4k stacks crowd can prove that all
> code paths are safe

I'll do that the minute you prove the current shared 8K stacks are safe. Do 
we have a deal?

> or introduce another viable alternative (such as Matt's idea for
> extending the stack dynamically), then removing the 8k stacks option
> makes sense.

I'm still waiting for larger soft-pages... does anyone in this thread have a 
clue on their status?

Rene.
-
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/