| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:56:30 +1000 From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> 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 Wednesday 10 October 2007 11:26, Christoph Lameter wrote: > 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. Generic code must assume a 4K stack on 32-bit, in general (modulo huge cpumasks and such, I guess). > > > > 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? Sure. It's already configurable on other architectures. - 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