Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-11 Thread Michael Neuling
In message <4b7481a6.7080...@gmx.de> you wrote: > On 02/10/2010 06:31 AM, Michael Neuling wrote: > > In message<20100210141016.4d18.a69d9...@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote: > >>> On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: > >> I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-11 Thread Helge Deller
On 02/10/2010 06:31 AM, Michael Neuling wrote: In message<20100210141016.4d18.a69d9...@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote: On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it as well. There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc. Coul

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread Michael Neuling
In message <20100210141016.4d18.a69d9...@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote: > > On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: > > >>> I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it > > >>> as well. > > >> > > >> There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc. > > >> Could someone

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread Michael Neuling
In message <20100210141016.4d18.a69d9...@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote: > > On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: > > >>> I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it > > >>> as well. > > >> > > >> There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc. > > >> Could someone

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
> On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: > >>> I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it > >>> as well. > >> > >> There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc. > >> Could someone please test it on parisc? > > I did. > > > How about doing: > >'ulimit -s 15

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread Helge Deller
On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it as well. There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc. Could someone please test it on parisc? I did. How about doing: 'ulimit -s 15; ls' before and after the patch is a

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread Michael Neuling
> > > note: it's untested. > > > > Works for me on ppc64 with 4k and 64k pages. Thanks! > > > > I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it > > as well. > > There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc. > > Guys, here's the rolled-up patch. FYI the rolled up pat

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:59:27 +1100 Michael Neuling wrote: > > > + /* Initial stack must not cause stack overflow. */ > > > + if (stack_expand > stack_expand_lim) > > > + stack_expand = stack_expand_lim; > > > #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP > > > - stack_base = vma->vm_end + EXTRA_STACK_VM_P

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-09 Thread Michael Neuling
In message <20100209154141.03f0.a69d9...@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote: > > When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not > > attempting to expand the stack by more than rlimit allows. > > > > This fixes a bug caused by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba "mm: > > variable len

Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-08 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
> When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not > attempting to expand the stack by more than rlimit allows. > > This fixes a bug caused by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba "mm: > variable length argument support" and unmasked by > fc63cf237078c86214abcb2ee9926d8ad289da

[PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

2010-02-08 Thread Michael Neuling
When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not attempting to expand the stack by more than rlimit allows. This fixes a bug caused by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba "mm: variable length argument support" and unmasked by fc63cf237078c86214abcb2ee9926d8ad289da9b "exec: se