Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-18 Thread Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > ObUML (again): Any estimated time of submission to Linus?! Is this an > early v2.5-thing, or are the changes minor enough to the rest of the > tree to allow for an v2.4-merge? There are almost no changes to the rest of the tree, and none of those affect any of the othe

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-17 Thread David Weinehall
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:01:22AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > ObUML: something fishy happens in UML with multiple exec() in PID 1. > > Try to say "telinit u" (or just boot with init=/bin/sh and say exec / > > sbin/init) and you've got a nice panic()... > > ObFix: This

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-16 Thread Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > ObUML: something fishy happens in UML with multiple exec() in PID 1. > Try to say "telinit u" (or just boot with init=/bin/sh and say exec / > sbin/init) and you've got a nice panic()... ObFix: This is fixed in my current CVS. If you're not so desperate for the fix,

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-16 Thread Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Erm... That piece is UML-only. Correct, thanks for noticing that. I was a bit over-enthusiastic with my cutting and pasting. Ignore that bit. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a me

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-16 Thread Alexander Viro
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Jeff Dike wrote: > +#endif > +#ifdef CONFIG_STDIO_CONSOLE > + stdio_console_init(); > #endif Erm... That piece is UML-only. ObUML: something fishy happens in UML with multiple exec() in PID 1. Try to say "telinit u" (or just boot with init=/bin/sh and say exec /sbin/

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-16 Thread Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I've got my nose stuck in tty_io.c at present - I'll fix this this > one. This is the patch I've been carrying around in the UML pool since this bit me: diff -Naur -X exclude-files orig/drivers/char/tty_io.c um/drivers/char/tty_io.c --- orig/drivers/char/tty_io.c Thu

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-16 Thread Andrew Morton
Dawson Engler wrote: > > Turns out we didn't have CONFIG_DEVFS_FS defined. Big time fun when it is: > > /u2/engler/mc/2.4.1/drivers/char/tty_io.c:1996:tty_register_devfs: >ERROR:VAR:1996:1996: suspicious var 'tty' = 3112 bytes I've got my nose stuck in tty_io.c at present - I'll fix this this

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-15 Thread Dawson Engler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > As usual, please report any false positives so we can fix our > > checkers. > > Not a false positive, but a false negative: > > the tty_struct locals at lines 1994 and 2029 in tty_register_devfs and > tty_unregister_devfs, respectively, in the 2.4.2 drivers/char/tt

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-15 Thread Andrew Morton
Jeff Dike wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > As usual, please report any false positives so we can fix our > > checkers. > > Not a false positive, but a false negative: > > the tty_struct locals at lines 1994 and 2029 in tty_register_devfs and > tty_unregister_devfs, respectively, in the 2.

Re: [CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-15 Thread Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > As usual, please report any false positives so we can fix our > checkers. Not a false positive, but a false negative: the tty_struct locals at lines 1994 and 2029 in tty_register_devfs and tty_unregister_devfs, respectively, in the 2.4.2 drivers/char/tty_io.c. Nice wo

[CHECKER] big stack variables

2001-03-15 Thread Dawson Engler
Hi, enclosed are 22 functions in 2.4.1 that appear to allocate stack variables >= 1024 bytes. As usual, please report any false positives so we can fix our checkers. Dawson --- /u2/engler/mc/2.4.1/drivers/isdn/sc/message.c:52:d