Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262711AbVA0TtJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:49:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262714AbVA0TtI (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:49:08 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:782 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262711AbVA0Tsx (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:48:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Patch 4/6 randomize the stack pointer From: Arjan van de Ven To: Linus Torvalds Cc: John Richard Moser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org In-Reply-To: References: <20050127101117.GA9760@infradead.org> <20050127101322.GE9760@infradead.org> <41F92721.1030903@comcast.net> <1106848051.5624.110.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41F92D2B.4090302@comcast.net> <41F937C0.4050803@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:48:46 +0100 Message-Id: <1106855326.5624.123.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1741 Lines: 31 > The fact is, different people have different needs. YOU only need to care > about yourself. That's not true for a vendor. A single case that doesn't > work ends up either (a) being ignored or (b) costing them money. See the > problem? They can't win. Except by taking small steps, where the breakage > is hopefully small too - and more importantly, because it's spread out > over time, you hopefully know what broke it. > > And when I say RH, I mean "me". That's the reason I personally hate > merging "D-day" things where a lot of things change. I much prefer merging > individual changes in small pieces. When things go wrong - and they will - > you can look at the individual pieces and say "ok, it's definitely not > that one" or "Hmm.. unlikely, but let's ask the reporter to check that > thing anyway" or "ok, that looks suspicious, let's start from there". this is exactly why the patch series I sent started with 64Kb. In fedora we use 2Mb actually, and I know of some cornercases where that gives issues (and the solution is a bit tricky). 64Kb is a nice safe start, and it means the implementation can be quite simple. Later on, once this patch has been proven solid and not to break stuff, adding a patch to bring it up to 2Mb or so (I don't think more makes much sense, but I'm open to debates about the ideal size for this, it's a tunable) that needs to deal with stack rlimits < 2Mb and such can be done as a separate step. Which then will in itself be quite simple again. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/