linux-kernel - Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs

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]

Message-ID: <20140215222844.GA18201@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:28:44 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 09:23:56AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
 
 > There's a pretty massive difference between the actual stack usage
 > of the local variables and the amount of stack being used by the
 > compiled code.
 > 
 > What it appears to be is that the compiler is pushing 6-10 registers
 > to the stack on every function call. So a function that only has 3
 > local variables and does very little but allocate a structure and
 > call other functions saves an 6 registers to the stack before it
 > starts:

I've got a shitload of debug options enabled, which may explain it.
Or perhaps that new STACK_PROTECTOR_STRONG stuff ?

	Dave
--
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/