From: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Yan Yankovskyi <yyankovskyi@gmail.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 18:02:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48893239-dde9-4e94-040d-859f4348816d@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0mWH=Zcq180+cTRMpqOkGt05xDP1+kCTP6yc9grAg2VQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 05.05.20 17:01, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 05.05.20 16:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> The __xenbus_map_ring() function has two large arrays, 'map' and
>>> 'unmap' on its stack. When clang decides to inline it into its caller,
>>> xenbus_map_ring_valloc_hvm(), the total stack usage exceeds the warning
>>> limit for stack size on 32-bit architectures.
>>>
>>> drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_client.c:592:12: error: stack frame size of 1104 bytes in function 'xenbus_map_ring_valloc_hvm' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than=]
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, other compilers don't inline it here, so we get
>>> no warning, but the stack usage is actually the same. It is possible
>>> for both arrays to use the same location on the stack, but the compiler
>>> cannot prove that this is safe because they get passed to external
>>> functions that may end up using them until they go out of scope.
>>>
>>> Move the two arrays into separate basic blocks to limit the scope
>>> and force them to occupy less stack in total, regardless of the
>>> inlining decision.
>>
>> Why don't you put both arrays into a union?
>
> I considered that as well, and don't really mind either way. I think it does
> get a bit ugly whatever we do. If you prefer the union, I can respin the
> patch that way.
Hmm, thinking more about it I think the real clean solution would be to
extend struct map_ring_valloc_hvm to cover the pv case, too, to add the
map and unmap arrays (possibly as a union) to it and to allocate it
dynamically instead of having it on the stack.
Would you be fine doing this?
Juergen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-05 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-05 14:15 [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-05 14:33 ` Jürgen Groß
2020-05-05 15:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-05 16:02 ` Jürgen Groß [this message]
2020-05-05 16:12 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2020-05-05 16:34 ` Jürgen Groß
2020-05-05 20:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-06 5:12 ` Jürgen Groß
2020-05-06 10:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48893239-dde9-4e94-040d-859f4348816d@suse.com \
--to=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
--cc=yyankovskyi@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox