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: <480EFDD3.4020707@aitel.hist.no>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:13:55 +0200
From:	Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.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>
Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> What actually brings bad reputation is shipping a 4k option that is 
> known to break under some circumstances.
>   
How about making 4k stacks incompatible with those circumstances then?
I.e. is you select 4k stacks, then you can't select XFS because we know
that _may_ fail. Similiar for ndiswrapper networking, and other
stuff where problems have been noticed.

Some people don't need any of these, and can then use
safe 4k stacks. Well, at least as safe as the 8k stacks are, there is no
mathematical proof for their safety in all cases either.

Helge Hafting
--
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/