On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Maybe I should just go with 24 as the max, and if we have a case where
> we need more, address it then?
Works for me.
Thanks,
tglx
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> Avoid VLAs[1] by always allocating the upper bound of stack space
>> needed. The existing users of rslib appear to max out at 32 roots,
>> so use that as the upper bound.
>
> I think 32 is plenty. Do
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> Avoid VLAs[1] by always allocating the upper bound of stack space
> needed. The existing users of rslib appear to max out at 32 roots,
> so use that as the upper bound.
I think 32 is plenty. Do we have actually a user with 32?
> Alternative: make init_rs()
Avoid VLAs[1] by always allocating the upper bound of stack space
needed. The existing users of rslib appear to max out at 32 roots,
so use that as the upper bound.
Alternative: make init_rs() a true caller-instance and pre-allocate
the workspaces. Will this need locking or are the callers already
4 matches
Mail list logo
