netdev - Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

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: <CAHk-=wiynwuneR4EbUNtd2_yNT_DR0VQhUF1QOZ352D-NOncjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:49:35 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger
 than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:35 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Won't your example only fix the issue with CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y

Yes, but..

> or am I misreading the gigantic comment in include/linux/cpumask.h?

you're not misreading the comment, but you are missing this important fact:

  config NR_CPUS_RANGE_END
        int
        depends on X86_64
        default 8192 if  SMP && CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
        default  512 if  SMP && !CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
        default    1 if !SMP

so basically you can't choose more than 512 CPU's unless
CPUMASK_OFFSTACK is set.

Of course, we may have some bug in the Kconfig elsewhere, and I didn't
check other architectures. So maybe there's some way to work around
it.

But basically the rule is that CPUMASK_OFFSTACK and NR_CPUS are linked.

That linkage is admittedly a bit hidden and much too subtle. I think
the only real reason why it's done that way is because people wanted
to do test builds with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK even without having to have
some ludicrous number of NR_CPUS.

You'll notice that the question "CPUMASK_OFFSTACK" is only enabled if
DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is true.

That whole "for debugging" reason made more sense a decade ago when
this was all new and fancy.

It might make more sense to do that very explicitly, and make
CPUMASK_OFFSTACK be just something like

  config NR_CPUS_RANGE_END
        def_bool NR_CPUS <= 512

and get rid of the subtlety and choice in the matter.

             Linus