Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964994AbWEORPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 13:15:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964988AbWEORPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 13:15:38 -0400 Received: from mail.aknet.ru ([82.179.72.26]:34566 "EHLO mail.aknet.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964994AbWEORPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 13:15:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4468B733.7010101@aknet.ru> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:15:31 +0400 From: Stas Sergeev User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linux kernel Subject: Re: Segfault on the i386 enter instruction References: <44676F42.7080907@aknet.ru> <20060515074019.GA33242@muc.de> In-Reply-To: <20060515074019.GA33242@muc.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 849 Lines: 19 Hi. Andi Kleen wrote: >> Aren't the rlimit and the other checks of acct_stack_growth() >> not enough, or am I missing something obvious? > Traditionally Linux doesn't have a stack ulimit. That clarifies the roots of this %esp check, as without the stack ulimit and without the proper memory accounting (the case of 2.4?) such a check is the "last hope" - I've got the point. But are there the reasons to still keep it in 2.6, considering also the false-positives? It seems to have the STACK_RLIMIT and it seems to get the memory accounting right, and not too many arches seem to have such a check even. - 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/