[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151006113328.GP6281@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:33:28 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Akhilesh Kumar <akhilesh.k@...sung.com>,
Manjeet Pawar <manjeet.p@...sung.com>,
Rohit Thapliyal <r.thapliyal@...sung.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, pankaj.m@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
>
> > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition
> > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need,
> > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be
> > enough for a couple of function calls".
>
> The python3 testsuite wants to put two signal frames in a SIGSTKSZ
> stack.
Whether it's valid to expect SIGSTKSZ to be big enough for that is
debatable.
But I guess that SIGSTKSZ = MINSIGSTKSZ * 4 provides some insurance
against such assumptions (doubtless the python testsuite is not
the only code affected).
Cheers
---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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists