From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932200AbWFNGiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:38:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751228AbWFNGiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:38:25 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45778 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751091AbWFNGiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:38:25 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 1/2] (resend) x86_64 stack overflow debugging Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:38:18 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: "Jan Beulich" , "Eric Sandeen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060613194322.D0CDC10CC671@attica.americas.sgi.com> <448FC7C0.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> In-Reply-To: <448FC7C0.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606140838.18891.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 14 June 2006 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote: > Are you certain you will ever see this trigger? Assembly code switches to the special interrupt handling stack prior to calling do_IRQ(), so I can't see how you would ever find yourself on the process stack in stack_overflow_check(). Jan The point of the code is to sample the original process stack and check if the code there is a stack pig, not the interrupt. I'm not sure it would be worth adding a special check for irqstack/exception stacks because nesting there should be pretty rare. Probably not. -Andi