linux-kernel - Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:40:18 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	paulus@...ba.org
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)

From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:36:16 +1100

> Steven Rostedt writes:
> 
> > By-the-way, my box has been running stable ever since I switched to 
> > CONFIG_IRQSTACKS.
> 
> Great.  We probably should remove the config option and just always
> use irq stacks.

That's what I did from the start on sparc64 when I added
irqstacks support.  It's pretty stupid to make it optional
when we know there are failure cases.

For example, is XFS dependant on IRQSTACKS on x86?  It should be, or
even more so XFS and NFS both being enabled at the same time :-)
--
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/