[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZM1tGgcJg0silFaJ@zx2c4.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:26:50 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: guoren@...nel.org
Cc: arnd@...db.de, palmer@...osinc.com, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
heiko@...ech.de, jszhang@...nel.org, bjorn@...nel.org,
cleger@...osinc.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next V13 1/3] riscv: stack: Support
HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK
Hi Guo,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 09:30:16PM -0400, guoren@...nel.org wrote:
> From: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> Add independent irq stacks for percpu to prevent kernel stack overflows.
> It is also compatible with VMAP_STACK by arch_alloc_vmap_stack.
>
> Tested-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
> Cc: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
This patch broke the WireGuard test suite. I've attached the .config
file that it uses. I'm able to fix it by setting CONFIG_EXPERT=y and
CONFIG_IRQ_STACKS=n to essentially reverse the effect of this patch. But
I'd rather not do that.
Any idea what's up?
Thanks,
Jason
View attachment ".config" of type "text/plain" (45739 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists