linux-kernel - Re: stack overflow on Sparc64

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.4.64.0806201925400.6353@engineering.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:37:15 -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 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Yes for debugging and other things it has to stay.
>>
>> If you want it to stay, then it doesn't make sense to make functions
>> tail-call-friendly --- because it should not crash with or without
>> debugging.
>
> On the contrary, of course it makes sense to do so.
>
> When debugging is disabled, the kernel will run faster.
>
> We have to fix the stack usage in either case, but from a
> performance standpoint when debugging is disabled the
> tail-call friendly layout is still highly desirable.

I agree, but performance is different problem than stack overflows.

I put all the patches for this overflow problem here:
http://people.redhat.com/mpatocka/patches/kernel-stack-overflow

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/