| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090103203621.GA2491@elte.hu> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:36:21 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3 * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > ok. The pending regressions are all fixed now, and i've just finished > > my standard tests on the latest tree and all the tests passed fine. > > Ok, pulled and pushed out. thanks! > Has anybody looked at what the stack size is with MAXSMP set with an > allyesconfig? And what areas are still problematic, if any? Are we going > to have some code-paths that still essentially have 1kB+ of stack space > just because they haven't been converted and still have the cpu mask on > stack? ok, indeed testing of that is in order now. I'll check what the worst-case runtime stack footprint is for an allyesconfig 64-bit bootup - that should be the worst-case scenario on x86. We have a low number of leftover places, but the serious ones like the IPI paths, which triggered stack overflows in the past, got all fixed. The test is underway with: CONFIG_64BIT=y CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4096 CONFIG_MAXSMP=y Ingo -- 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