[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806201723120.14221@engineering.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: stack overflow on Sparc64
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:14:41 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> Are you sure? What about this:
>> ide-io.c:ide_intr
>> if (drive->unmask)
>> local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
>>
>> or this:
>> kernel/irq/handle.c:handle_IRQ_event
>> if (!(action->flags & IRQF_DISABLED))
>> local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
>>
>>
>> --- how is number of nested interrupts here supposed to be limited?
>>
>> If these things are not limited, you get at most as many nested handlers
>> as there are hardware interrupts, which means crash.
>
> It means i386 and every other platform potentially has the same exact
> problem.
>
> What point wrt. sparc64 are you trying to make here? :-)
The difference is that i386 takes minimum 4 bytes per stack frame and
sparc64 192 bytes per stack frame. So this problem will kill sparc64
sooner.
But yes, it is general problem and should be solved in arch-independent
code.
Mikulas
--
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