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:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:33:58 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>,
	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>, Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
	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 Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 01:39:55AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > About 4k stacks I was generally against them, much better to fail in
> > fork than to risk corruption. The per-irq stack part is great feature
> > instead (too bad it wasn't enabled for the safer 8k stacks).
> 
> 8K stacks without IRQ stacks are not "safer" so I don't understand your
> comment ?

Ouch, see the reports about 4k stack crashes. I agree they're not
safe w/o irq stacks (like on x86-64), but they're generally safer.
-
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/