* [PATCH] x86_64: fix the check point in stack_overflow_check
@ 2008-11-22 9:10 jia zhang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: jia zhang @ 2008-11-22 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mingo; +Cc: linux-kernel
stack_overflow_check() should consider the stack usage of pt_regs, and thus it could warn us in advance. Additionally, it looks a bit good that the warning time starts at INITIAL_JIFFIES.
Signed-off-by: jia zhang <jia.zhang2008@gmail.com>
---
Assume at the moment rsp get close to the check point before interrupt arrives.
When interrupt really happens, thread_info will be partly overrode.
b/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c
@@ -29,11 +29,12 @@
static inline void stack_overflow_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
u64 curbase = (u64)task_stack_page(current);
- static unsigned long warned = -60*HZ;
+ static unsigned long warned = INITIAL_JIFFIES - 60*HZ;
if (regs->sp >= curbase && regs->sp <= curbase + THREAD_SIZE &&
- regs->sp < curbase + sizeof(struct thread_info) + 128 &&
- time_after(jiffies, warned + 60*HZ)) {
+ regs->sp < curbase + sizeof(struct thread_info) +
+ sizeof(struct pt_regs) + 128 &&
+ time_after(jiffies, warned + 60*HZ)) {
printk("do_IRQ: %s near stack overflow (cur:%Lx,sp:%lx)\n",
current->comm, curbase, regs->sp);
show_stack(NULL,NULL);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] x86_64: fix the check point in stack_overflow_check
@ 2008-11-23 1:51 jia zhang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: jia zhang @ 2008-11-23 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: tglx, Ingo Molnar, hpa
stack_overflow_check() should consider the stack usage of pt_regs, and thus it could warn us in advance. Additionally, it looks a bit good that the warning time starts at INITIAL_JIFFIES.
Signed-off-by: jia zhang <jia.zhang2008@gmail.com>
---
Assume at the moment rsp get close to the check point before interrupt arrives.
When interrupt really happens, thread_info will be partly overrode.
arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c
@@ -29,11 +29,12 @@
static inline void stack_overflow_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
u64 curbase = (u64)task_stack_page(current);
- static unsigned long warned = -60*HZ;
+ static unsigned long warned = INITIAL_JIFFIES - 60*HZ;
if (regs->sp >= curbase && regs->sp <= curbase + THREAD_SIZE &&
- regs->sp < curbase + sizeof(struct thread_info) + 128 &&
- time_after(jiffies, warned + 60*HZ)) {
+ regs->sp < curbase + sizeof(struct thread_info) +
+ sizeof(struct pt_regs) + 128 &&
+ time_after(jiffies, warned + 60*HZ)) {
printk("do_IRQ: %s near stack overflow (cur:%Lx,sp:%lx)\n",
current->comm, curbase, regs->sp);
show_stack(NULL,NULL);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-23 1:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-11-22 9:10 [PATCH] x86_64: fix the check point in stack_overflow_check jia zhang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-11-23 1:51 jia zhang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox