From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:09:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:09:37 -0400 Received: from h24-65-193-28.cg.shawcable.net ([24.65.193.28]:44534 "EHLO webber.adilger.int") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:09:23 -0400 From: Andreas Dilger Message-Id: <200105242308.f4ON8fv8015978@webber.adilger.int> Subject: Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 and 2.4.4-ac8 In-Reply-To: <200105242110.OAA29766@csl.Stanford.EDU> "from Dawson Engler at May 24, 2001 02:10:00 pm" To: Dawson Engler Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:08:40 -0600 (MDT) CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL87 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dawson Engler writes: > Here are 37 errors where variables >= 1024 bytes are allocated on a > function's stack. First of all, thanks very much for the work you are doing. It really is useful, and a good way to catch those very rare error cases that would not otherwise be fixed. I'm curious about this stack checker. Does it check for a single stack allocation >= 1024 bytes, or does it also check for several individual, smaller allocations which total >= 1024 bytes inside a single function? That would be equally useful. On a side note, does anyone know if the kernel does checking if the stack overflowed at any time? It is hard to use Dawson's tools to verify call paths because of interrupts and such, but I wonder what happens when the kernel stack overflows - OOPS, or silent corruption? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert