On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:41:43AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 12:51:24 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be > > enough for a couple of function calls". If we want to be conservative > > in the kernel, using 8192 and 32768, to stay with the x4 ratio > > that everyone else uses would be my first pick, though I'm not > > particularly attached to those values. > > > > > > On second thought, it really seems to late to make up our minds > about the size now that glibc has already established 5KB as the > minimum size. If we set it to 8KB/32KB, not just the testcase but > real applications would start failing when they use the 5KB > constant from glibc.
I agree for MINSIGSTKSZ. We could still raise SIGSTKSZ if we think that will be more future-proof (SIGSTKSZ would be less than the magic 4*MINSIGSTKSZ that most arches assume, unless SIGSTKSZ is made >=20KB). Those might be independent changes. The definition of MINSIGSTKSZ is definitely broken right now, whereas SIGSTKSZ could be debated, but isn't actually broken. Cheers ---Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
