[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090331190214.GB25879@logfs.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:02:14 +0200
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Detailed Stack Information Patch [0/3]
On Tue, 31 March 2009 20:22:15 +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 31.03.2009, 17:49 +0200 schrieb Andi Kleen:
> > Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> writes:
>
> > > - Misuse the thread stack for big temporary data buffers
> >
> > That would be better checked for at compile time
> > (except for alloca, but that is quite rare)
>
> Fine but it did not work for functions like:
>
> void foo(int n)
> {
> char buf[n*1024];
>
> }
>
> This is valid with gcc.
Good call. checkstack should look for those as well. It is certainly
possible to detect statically and warn about:
10: 29 c4 sub %eax,%esp
Runaway recursions are a different matter, though. The code I once had
to detect them depends on an old version of smatch, which in turn
depends on gcc 3.1. And even assuming this was in a reasonable shape, I
still don't know what to do about it. The kernel has thousands of
recursions and trying to work out how deep each one may stack is a
never-ending project.
Jörn
--
A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is
no battle unless there be two.
-- Seneca
--
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