[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:07:02 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Yuri Tikhonov <yur@...raft.com>, wd@...x.de, dzu@...x.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miltonm@....com,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com, yanok@...raft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] fork_init: fix division by zero
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:48:29 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > > +#if (8 * THREAD_SIZE) > PAGE_SIZE
> > > max_threads = mempages / (8 * THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE);
> > > +#else
> > > + max_threads = mempages * (PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE));
> > > +#endif
> >
> > The expression you've chosen here can be quite inacccurate, because
> > ((PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE)) is a small number. The way to
> > preserve accuracy is
>
> The assumption is that THREAD_SIZE is a power of 2, as is PAGE_SIZE.
>
> I think Yuri should be increasing THREAD_SIZE for the larger page
> sizes he's implementing, because we have on-stack arrays whose size
> depends on the page size. I suspect that having THREAD_SIZE less than
> 1/8 of PAGE_SIZE risks stack overflows, and the better fix is for Yuri
> to make sure THREAD_SIZE is at least 1/8 of PAGE_SIZE. (In fact, more
> may be needed - someone should work out what fraction is actually
> needed.)
OK, yes.
It's the MAX_BUF_PER_PAGE arrays which will hurt. iirc they nest
three-deep on some codepaths.
--
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