> A small overflow of the kernel stack overwrites the struct task at the
> bottom of the stack, recovery is dubious at best because we rely on
> data in struct task. A large overflow of the kernel stack either
> corrupts the storage below this task's stack, which could hit anything,
> or it gets a stack fault.
Is there a reason for the task structure to be at the bottom rather than the
top of these two pages ?
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Dawson Engler
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4... Alexander Viro
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in... Dawson Engler
- RE: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Dunlap, Randy
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Andreas Dilger
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4... Andi Kleen
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in... Keith Owens
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K... Andi Kleen
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Andi Kleen
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... Oliver Neukum
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... dean gaudet
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4... Jonathan Lundell
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in... dean gaudet
- Re: [CHECKER] large stack variables (>=1K) in 2.4.4 an... VDA

