linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/2] x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K

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: <CAFLxGvwJV+PJchoNEJjnge9CuBrxFJ3TPxcN_M+j1CdAW-GmNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2014 11:48:00 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> So I'm not in fact arguing against Minchan's patch of upping
> THREAD_SIZE_ORDER to 2 on x86-64, but at the same time stack size does
> remain one of my "we really need to be careful" issues, so while I am
> basically planning on applying that patch, I _also_ want to make sure
> that we fix the problems we do see and not just paper them over.
>
> The 8kB stack has been somewhat restrictive and painful for a while,
> and I'm ok with admitting that it is just getting _too_ damn painful,
> but I don't want to just give up entirely when we have a known deep
> stack case.

If we raise the stack size on x86_64 to 16k, what about i386?
Beside of the fact that most of you consider 32bits as dead and must die... ;)

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
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/