Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:37:28 -0500 | From | Mike Snitzer <> | Subject | Re: About 4k kernel stack size.... |
| |
On 12/20/05, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 09:52:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > >... > > The mainline code paths are undoubtedly fine with 4K stacks. > > It's the *error paths* that are most likely to go deeper on the stack, > > and those are rarely exercised by anyone. And those are the paths > > that we *really* need to be reliable. > > "most likely" is a strong sentence, especially considering that the > automatic analysis of all possible call chains can and has already > identified several such problems (which have now been fixed many months > ago). > > We might not getting 100% security against stack overflows, but that's > not fundamentally different from the current situation with 6 kB stacks.
Given this last statement, why is it that Matt Mackall's suggestion in the "Light-weight dynamically extended stacks" thread didn't get any _real_ discussion from the big 4K stack advocates? For all intents and purposes, Matt was dismissed with the same Bunk: "Ever since neilb's patch there are 0 bugs.. blah blah". 4K, 8K (aka "6 kB") aside; having more stack safety in the Linux kernel is a "good thing" no? Aren't dynamic stacks a viable means to imposing 4K (but doing so with real safety)?
Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |