linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6: v4] lockdep: Make MAX_STACK_TRACE

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006162331380.28756@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:33:42 +0200 (CEST)
From:	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
	ghaskins@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6: v4] lockdep: Make MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES
 configurable.



On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:37 +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 00:21 +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > > > Certain debug configurations that have LOCKDEP turned on, run into the limit
> > > > where the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES are too small. Rather than simply turning
> > > > off the locking correctness validator, let the user configure this value
> > > > to something reasonable for their system.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch was generated against 2.6.33.5-rt23 but is also intended to be
> > > > picked-up for mainline.
> > > 
> > > NACK
> > > 
> > > patches like 4726f2a617ebd868a4fdeb5679613b897e5f1676 are the way to go.
> > 
> > I've been testing 4726f2a617ebd868a4fdeb5679613b897e5f1676 in rt
> > (Thomas has it in tip/rt/2.6.33 now) and so far it is doing the trick for 
> > me, at least on my laptop. I still need to test it on larger machines.
> > However, this problem seems to continuably come up, and I'm not the only 
> > one who has expessed the wish / need to have this tunable.
> 
> And simply increasing the number without thought is the worst approach
> ever and I'm simply not going to merge it.
> 
> Also, google doesn't seem to index msg-ids, so I've no idea what you're
> referring to.
> --

The first mail in which Gregory also expressed desire to make this tunable 
is here
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/21/123

The second in which Sven said in certain configurations they might even 
tune it down (decrease) is here.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/21/183
--
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/