linux-kernel - Re: x86: 4kstacks default

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: <200804201659.52902.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:59:51 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	7eggert@....de
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default

On Sunday 20 April 2008 16:23:45 Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 April 2008 08:27:14 Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> writes:
> >> > 6k is known to work, and there aren't many problems known with 4k.
> >> >
> >> > And from a QA point of view the only way of getting 4k thoroughly
> >> > tested
> >>
> >> But you have to first ask why do you want 4k tested? Does it serve
> >> any useful purpose in itself? I don't think so. Or you're saying
> >> it's important to support 50k kernel threads on 32bit kernels?
> >
> > Andi, you're the only one I've seen seriously pounding the "50k threads"
> > thing - I don't think anyone is really fooled by the straw-man, so I'd
> > suggest you drop it.
> >
> > The real issue is that you think (and are correct in thinking) that
> > people are idiots. Yes, there will be breakages if the default is changed
> > to 4k stacks - but if people are running new kernels on boxes that'll hit
> > stack use problems (that *AREN'T* related to ndiswrapper) and haven't
> > made sure that they've configured the kernel properly, then they deserve
> > the outcome. It isn't the job of the Linux Kernel to protect the
> > incompetent - nor is it the job of linux kernel developers to do such.
>
> It's the job of the kernel developers to mark experimental and broken
> options, and to put a warning:
>
> "This will break stacking of drivers, especially if disk manager, xfs, RAID
> and nfs are used. Yes, linux is broken by default, but only if you intend
> to set up a reliable system, so this will be OK!"
>
> into the help text, instead of expecting each admin to read lkml.

Note that I've yet to meet a competent admin that creates brand new 
configurations each time they build a new kernel for a machine. Usually they 
have a "default configuration" for each machine that gets updated each time a 
new kernel is built. Usually they don't change working options. And since 
changing things to 4K stacks default would cause a new option - the "8K 
stacks" option to show up in a "make oldconfig" run - the admin would see it 
and, hopefully, check the help text and see that it his system, with a deeply 
stacked driver system (nfs+xfs+raid, for example) and set the 8K stacks 
option to "Y".

As I said, it isn't the job of the kernel or kernel developers to protect the 
incompetent (or the lazy).

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
--
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/