linux-kernel - Re: [linux-stable-rc:linux-5.15.y 4542/9999] arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c:2185:5: warning: stack frame size (1036) exceeds limit (1024) in 'kvm_hv

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:13:07 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     llvm@...ts.linux.dev, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-stable-rc:linux-5.15.y 4542/9999]
 arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c:2185:5: warning: stack frame size (1036) exceeds
 limit (1024) in 'kvm_hv_hypercall'

kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> writes:

> Hi Vitaly,
>
> FYI, the error/warning still remains.
>
> tree:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> linux-5.15.y

...

>
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
>>> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c:2185:5: warning: stack frame size (1036) exceeds limit (1024) in 'kvm_hv_hypercall' [-Wframe-larger-than]
>    int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>        ^
>    1 warning generated.

For the reference, previous discussion of the problem:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/87zgg6sza8.fsf@redhat.com/

The patch to fix this:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221004123956.188909-19-vkuznets@redhat.com/

is part of "KVM: x86: hyper-v: Fine-grained TLB flush + L2 TLB flush
features" series (v11:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221004123956.188909-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/) 
which I hope to see in 6.2 (fingers crossed!), however, it is unlikely
to go to stable@ unless we know that there's a real problem to fix. I'll
backport it then.

-- 
Vitaly