From: Frank Seidel Subject: Re: [PATCH][trivial] crypto: tcrypt - reduce stack size Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:34:11 +0100 Message-ID: <49A556E3.1000309@suse.de> References: <49A54C23.8090209@suse.de> <20090225142000.GA4136@gondor.apana.org.au> <49A55499.6090700@suse.de> <82ecf08e0902250629n6a190165u557c21b0ebe797d5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Herbert Xu , linux kernel , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Frank Seidel , akpm@linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , nhorman@tuxdriver.com, lho@amcc.com, kaber@trash.net, darrenrjenkins@gmail.com, Greg KH To: Thiago Galesi Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34917 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753338AbZBYOeO (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:34:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <82ecf08e0902250629n6a190165u557c21b0ebe797d5@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thiago Galesi wrote: > If you write static char output[1024]; (even inside a function) it's > not allocated on the stack. Oh, yes i misunderstood Herbert, sorry. But anyway isn't it preferred to kmalloc such arrays? Greg, i thought it was you who told me so, is that right? Thanks, Frank