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  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]
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 07:12:24 +0200
From:   Jürgen Groß <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <>,
        Stefano Stabellini <>,
        Yan Yankovskyi <>, Wei Liu <>,
        xen-devel <>,
        "" <>,
        clang-built-linux <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning

On 05.05.20 22:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:02 PM Jürgen Groß <> wrote:
>> On 05.05.20 17:01, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jürgen Groß <> wrote:
>>>> On 05.05.20 16:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> I considered that as well, and don't really mind either way. I think it does
>>> get a bit ugly whatever we do. If you prefer the union, I can respin the
>>> patch that way.
>> Hmm, thinking more about it I think the real clean solution would be to
>> extend struct map_ring_valloc_hvm to cover the pv case, too, to add the
>> map and unmap arrays (possibly as a union) to it and to allocate it
>> dynamically instead of having it on the stack.
>> Would you be fine doing this?
> This is a little more complex than I'd want to do without doing any testing
> (and no, I don't want to do the testing either) ;-)
> It does sound like a better approach though.

I take this as you are fine with me writing the patch and adding you as


Powered by blists - more mailing lists