From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263225AbTEGOVv (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 10:21:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263227AbTEGOVv (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 10:21:51 -0400 Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.21]:62381 "EHLO mailout10.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263225AbTEGOVg (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 10:21:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 16:33:15 +0200 From: Torsten Landschoff To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: "Richard B. Johnson" , Linux kernel Subject: Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69 Message-ID: <20030507143315.GA6879@stargate.galaxy> References: <20030507132024.GB18177@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20030507135657.GC18177@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20030507135657.GC18177@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 03:56:57PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > Agreed, partially. There is the current issue of the kernel stack > being just 8k in size and no decent mechanism in place to detect a > stack overflow. And there is (arguably) the future issue of the kernel > stack shrinking to 4k. Pardon my ignorance, but why is the kernel stack shrinked to just a few kilobytes? With 256MB of RAM in a typical desktop system it shouldn't be a problem to use 256KB from that as the stack, but I am sure there are good reasons to shrink it. Just curious, thanks for any info Torsten PS: Joern, you don't by chance know my sister (kirsten@wh.fh-wedel.de)?? :-))