Re: stack overflow on Sparc64

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:

> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:14:41 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > Are you sure? What about this:
> > ide-io.c:ide_intr
> >          if (drive->unmask)
> >                  local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
> >
> > or this:
> > kernel/irq/handle.c:handle_IRQ_event
> >          if (!(action->flags & IRQF_DISABLED))
> >                  local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
> >
> >
> > --- how is number of nested interrupts here supposed to be limited?
> >
> > If these things are not limited, you get at most as many nested handlers
> > as there are hardware interrupts, which means crash.
>
> It means i386 and every other platform potentially has the same exact
> problem.
>
> What point wrt. sparc64 are you trying to make here? :-)

The difference is that i386 takes minimum 4 bytes per stack frame and 
sparc64 192 bytes per stack frame. So this problem will kill sparc64 
sooner.

But yes, it is general problem and should be solved in arch-independent 
code.

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