> A small overflow of the kernel stack overwrites the struct task at the > bottom of the stack, recovery is dubious at best because we rely on > data in struct task. A large overflow of the kernel stack either > corrupts the storage below this task's stack, which could hit anything, > or it gets a stack fault. Is there a reason for the task structure to be at the bottom rather than the top of these two pages ? Regards Oliver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Dawson Engler
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4... Alexander Viro
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in... Dawson Engler
- RE: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Dunlap, Randy
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Andreas Dilger
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4... Andi Kleen
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in... Keith Owens
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K... Andi Kleen
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Andi Kleen
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Oliver Neukum
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... dean gaudet
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4... Jonathan Lundell
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in... dean gaudet
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... VDA