| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071004153940.49bd5afc@bree.surriel.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:39:40 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com Subject: Re: [13/18] x86_64: Allow fallback for the stack On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > We've known for ages that it is possible. But it has been always so > > rare that it was ignored. > > Well we can now address the rarity. That is the whole point of the > patchset. Introducing complexity to fight a very rare problem with a good fallback (refusing to fork more tasks, as well as lumpy reclaim) somehow does not seem like a good tradeoff. > > Is there any evidence this is more common now than it used to be? > > It will be more common if the stack size is increased beyond 8k. Why would we want to do such a thing? 8kB stacks are large enough... -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists