On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:41:44PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
quoted text
> Likely already too late then -- if critical state is overwritten
> you crashed before. Also a lot of stack intensive codes
> relatively large unused holes so it might miss the canary completely
> Anyways if you want a crash on context switch in the non
> hole case you can probably get it by just rearranging thread_info a bit.
> e.g. put preempt_count first. Any corruption of that will lead
> to schedule complaining.
> Don't think it is worth it though.
> I suppose one could have a CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_OVERFLOW that gets
> the stacks from vmalloc which would catch any overflow with its
> guard pages. This is you would need to change __pa() to handle
> that too because there might be still some drivers that do
> DMA on stack addresses.  Would be somewhat ugly but doable.
> But I have my doubts it is worth it again -- in my experience static
> analysis works well enough to trace them down and 
> there are not that many anyways.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but halting the system in the
case of memory corruption sounds like an extremely good idea to me.


-- wli
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/