On 12/20/05, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
