Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200505141546.824573-1-arnd@arndb.de> <30d49e6d-570b-f6fd-3a6f-628abcc8b127@suse.com>
 <CAK8P3a0mWH=Zcq180+cTRMpqOkGt05xDP1+kCTP6yc9grAg2VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <48893239-dde9-4e94-040d-859f4348816d@suse.com> <CAK8P3a2_7+_a_cwDK1cwfrJX4azQJhd_Y0xB18cCUn6=p7fVsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2c6e4b36-6618-1889-55c4-16eeb1ef6f57@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <2c6e4b36-6618-1889-55c4-16eeb1ef6f57@suse.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 12:28:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a05wLCy0GT88mc451h3uXuU86aZ7XC=YXYXi12J0dFJkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning
To:     =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= <jgross@suse.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Yan Yankovskyi <yyankovskyi@gmail.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:12 AM Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 05.05.20 22:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:02 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> >> On 05.05.20 17:01, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 05.05.20 16:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I considered that as well, and don't really mind either way. I think it does
> >>> get a bit ugly whatever we do. If you prefer the union, I can respin the
> >>> patch that way.
> >>
> >> Hmm, thinking more about it I think the real clean solution would be to
> >> extend struct map_ring_valloc_hvm to cover the pv case, too, to add the
> >> map and unmap arrays (possibly as a union) to it and to allocate it
> >> dynamically instead of having it on the stack.
> >>
> >> Would you be fine doing this?
> >
> > This is a little more complex than I'd want to do without doing any testing
> > (and no, I don't want to do the testing either) ;-)
> >
> > It does sound like a better approach though.
>
> I take this as you are fine with me writing the patch and adding you as
> "Reported-by:"?

Yes, definitely. Thanks!

     Arnd