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: <20210908152351.asln63jxk43xffib@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
Date:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:23:51 +0000
From:   Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Wei Liu' <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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" <GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com>,
        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" <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>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        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 Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:51:21PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Wei Liu
> > Sent: 08 September 2021 11:03
> ...
> > However calling into the allocator from that IPI path seems very heavy
> > weight. I will discuss with fellow engineers on how to fix it properly.
> 
> Isn't the IPI code something that is likely to get called
> when a lot of stack has already been used?
> 
> So you really shouldn't be using much stack at all??

I don't follow your questions. I don't dispute there is a problem. I
just think calling into the allocator is not a good idea in that
particular piece of code we need to fix.

Hopefully we can come up with a solution to remove need for a cpumask in
that code -- discussion is on-going.

Wei.

> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>