From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937230AbXGSNka (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:40:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759483AbXGSNkO (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:40:14 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.177]:51368 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755860AbXGSNkL (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:40:11 -0400 From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] 4K stacks default, not a debug thing any more...? To: Alan Cox , Andrea Arcangeli , Matt Mackall , Rene Herman , Ray Lee , Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Jesper Juhl , Linux Kernel Mailing List , William Lee Irwin III , David Chinner , Arjan van de Ven Reply-To: 7eggert@gmx.de Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:37:54 +0200 References: <8Hgoq-7Cd-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8Hz7K-38K-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <8HHeZ-7R1-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8HHoA-835-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8HHI2-8r2-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <8HHRD-rK-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8HI1j-Dn-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8HIb2-PD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8IrUr-4SZ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <8IsdO-5g4-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8It9R-6Eb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8IAkZ-WW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Message-Id: X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-From: 7eggert@gmx.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+Bd3Nbdpy5EPHj2AFEJDzUQVRCb8p/HoNHkjG HhpAPX64jRH34ZJbGecnE/z/LRX643DPDlr1CJWe37P4cMAw3r RIShzIFHba//iF0w5OFoQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:33:58 +0200 > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> > 8K stacks without IRQ stacks are not "safer" so I don't understand your >> > comment ? >> >> Ouch, see the reports about 4k stack crashes. I agree they're not >> safe w/o irq stacks (like on x86-64), but they're generally safer. > > Still don't follow. How is "exceeds stack space but less likely to be > noticed" safer. If there is a tree in the forest, is it as likely to fall as the three that's being chopped in front of our eyes? It is, because each tree will fall eventually, but you'd still not allow your kids to play on the tree being chopped, but you'd probably allow them to climb that other tree like all the other kids do. The same applies to the stack: We don't know if or when we'll see all possible interrupts fire and kill the 8K stack, but we know for sure the 8K stack has been climbed for years and there is an axe on that 4K stack. So where do you send the users to play? -- What's worse than a Male Chauvinist Pig? A woman that won't do what she's told. Friß, Spammer: Fq@Bbu29.7eggert.dyndns.org od1Gkubx@hrBky.7eggert.dyndns.org