Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jesper Juhl
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 3:53 pm

On 30/08/2007, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
...
A first step could be to allocate those two char arrays with kmalloc()
instead of on the stack, but then I guess that dump_stack() gets
called from places where we may not really want to be calling
kmalloc(). I guess we could allocate the buffers earlier (like at boot
time) and store pointers somewhere where dump stack can get to them
later when it needs them.



We could also simply have it warn at a higher limit, like 1024 bytes
instead of 512. But I guess then we would get too many false positives
and make it less useful.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed Aug 29, 3:34 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Jesper Juhl, (Wed Aug 29, 3:53 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed Aug 29, 4:01 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 29, 4:55 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Denys Vlasenko, (Fri Aug 31, 4:11 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Jörn, (Fri Aug 31, 7:35 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Denys Vlasenko, (Fri Aug 31, 10:16 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Mike Snitzer, (Wed May 28, 7:36 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed May 28, 8:13 am)