linux-kernel - Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ

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: <CAHmME9oXsRrABzCjCQ_+O+QJmMgWyoyj73igHLaJKNfbf-brDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:47:47 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>,
        k@...ka.home.kg
Subject: Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:17 AM, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Easiest thing to do would be to select 16K page size in your .config, I
> think that will give you a similar sized stack.

I didn't realize that was possible...

I'm mostly concerned about the best way to deal with systems that have
a limited stack size on architectures without support for separate irq
stacks. Part of this I assume involves actually detecting with a
processor definition that the current architecture has a deceptively
small stack.