Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:55:44 -0600 |
| |
On 9/8/21 3:24 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:16 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On 9/8/21 11:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:12 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>> On 9/7/21 5:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>>> The KUNIT macros create all these individually reasonably small >>>>> initialized structures on stack, and when you have more than a small >>>>> handful of them the KUNIT infrastructure just makes the stack space >>>>> explode. Sometimes the compiler will be able to re-use the stack >>>>> slots, but it seems to be an iffy proposition to depend on it - it >>>>> seems to be a combination of luck and various config options. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have been concerned about these macros creeping in for a while. >>>> I will take a closer look and work with Brendan to come with a plan >>>> to address it. >>> >>> I've previously sent patches to turn off the structleak plugin for >>> any kunit test file to work around this, but only a few of those patches >>> got merged and new files have been added since. It would >>> definitely help to come up with a proper fix, but my structleak-disable >>> hack should be sufficient as a quick fix. >>> >> >> Looks like these are RFC patches and the discussion went cold. Let's pick >> this back up and we can make progress. >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFd5g45+JqKDqewqz2oZtnphA-_0w62FdSTkRs43K_NJUgnLBg@mail.gmail.com/ > > I can try to get the patch reapplying and send it out (I just figured > that Arnd or Kees would want to send it out :-) since it was your > idea). >
Brendan,
Would you like to send me the fix with Suggested-by for Arnd or Kees?
thanks, -- Shuah
| |