Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:6744:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w4csp443178pxu; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:01:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrHYCTD3Rg/uvhGnImLjkGiUdoDQTZCHlqt95ZAicDnXRWMKlHlAvcl9iXKdPrRL4ylp8K X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2818:: with SMTP id r24mr563233ejc.100.1602003714275; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:01:54 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1602003714; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=KcoXNq52+La3Xr4WZfrPvtFv5sS6isImfhNCKt2NuaTibRxiiENy/xW81hgVqjENMv UFuUWr/dPwtW3Q5i3TrdUzOGGwKzOoC2QzfMBHQPncpVaL82WHbLiWHIkA/TtolAzaXi gLMM9IDnypOkL0YeEvRwHEwKHKZBIhGI1BxhAruuIHxAOC54CXgBsRwot2CuH/G7Ivv+ QliJFMMBglQFmwly8xUUX/znDV/z3MUmuK0p7NMv+jo02iOybSR09cgu7rjjGgfhjzak I2QyKpcBYYWg+KCNgZiM1wkC0Dnn69c5p4qGqbaT20hLaKzNyG/twBDB4NzgzqM7gqoY eGvg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=842s+AcRD6p9oDLiBE+y+BDwi5wG4vRHOjnIrsuTjwA=; b=YqmiCLQENew+/AiBfISaOYuUi5hWPeoBLdmsrpUPxvpg2qeUc9QFDZVMEtVIycy2Oi u3iRd6JWcgOzYicWRRO/W13j+8cuB9pJsmeD5ChZnV9HXmSFfhPMRrNtSb1nEBpusVY+ ajOQdGZDBbfeV5MaRSs/ZBK0eBjMZZCOdU0VeKtRg/d/1Ci0x7oy10IUfgZV+gKyUrB9 fTsME5qoRf2/YtSVC6fPJJ0Qu9MtIki1WKXK9gGxawhpNWv41FH7Qsx8+BwLMZowX7SE 8+LriSsvV0Q6rF810/LcLRayeo2FbSaMRcksRYD9guQu8f6r1PyW8CMG3xVbVpQ2nUUX EOJw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n26si2487300ejg.134.2020.10.06.10.01.30; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:01:54 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726143AbgJFRA1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:00:27 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:52364 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725947AbgJFRA1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:00:27 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31C1D6E; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A660A3F66B; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:00:21 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Dave Hansen Cc: "H.J. Lu" , "Chang S. Bae" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , the arch/x86 maintainers , Len Brown , Michael Ellerman , Tony Luck , "Ravi V. Shankar" , GNU C Library , linux-arch , Linux API , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] x86: Improve Minimum Alternate Stack Size Message-ID: <20201006170020.GB6642@arm.com> References: <20200929205746.6763-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> <20201005134534.GT6642@arm.com> <20201006092532.GU6642@arm.com> <20201006152553.GY6642@arm.com> <7663eff0-6c94-f6bf-f3e2-93ede50e75ed@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7663eff0-6c94-f6bf-f3e2-93ede50e75ed@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 08:33:47AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 10/6/20 8:25 AM, Dave Martin wrote: > > Or are people reporting real stack overruns on x86 today? > > We have real overruns. We have ~2800 bytes of XSAVE (regisiter) state > mostly from AVX-512, and a 2048 byte MINSIGSTKSZ. Right. Out of interest, do you believe that's a direct consequence of the larger kernel-generated signal frame, or does the expansion of userspace stack frames play a role too? In practice software just assumes SIGSTKSZ and then ignores the problem until / unless an actual stack overflow is seen. There's probably a lot of software out there whose stack is theoretically too small even without AVX-512 etc. in the mix, especially when considering the possibility of nested signals... Cheers ---Dave