linux-kernel - Re: [13/18] x86_64: Allow fallback for the stack

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710091825470.4500@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, 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 Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > We already use 32k stacks on IA64. So the memory argument fail there.
> 
> I'm talking about generic code.

The stack size is set in arch code not in generic code.

> > > The solution has until now always been to fix the problems so they don't
> > > use so much stack. Maybe a bigger stack is OK for you for 1024+ CPU
> > > systems, but I don't think you'd be able to make that assumption for most
> > > normal systems.
> >
> > Yes that is why I made the stack size configurable.
> 
> Fine. I just don't see why you need this fallback.

So you would be ok with submitting the configurable stacksize patches 
separately without the fallback? 
-
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/