From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com [209.85.160.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594C08E00E5 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id u32so16997704qte.1 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id i64sor8684583qke.133.2018.12.11.19.54.39 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:54:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: increase stack size for KASAN_EXTRA References: <721E7B42-2D55-4866-9C1A-3E8D64F33F9C@gmx.us> <20181207223449.38808-1-cai@lca.pw> <1544548707.18411.3.camel@lca.pw> <1544565158.18411.5.camel@lca.pw> <1544565572.18411.7.camel@lca.pw> <1544566937.18411.9.camel@lca.pw> From: Qian Cai Message-ID: <9248f272-4b8f-183d-73eb-28fed1debcd2@lca.pw> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:54:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , kasan-dev , Linux-MM , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List On 12/11/18 6:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> I am thinking about something it is probably best just waiting for those major >> distors to complete upgrading to GCC9 or back-porting those stack reduction >> patches first. Then, it is good time to tie up loose ends for those default >> stack sizes in all combinations. > > I was basically trying to make sure we don't forget it when it gets to that. I added a reminder in my calendar to check the GCC9 adoption in Q2 FY19. > > Another alternative would be to just disable KASAN_EXTRA now > for gcc versions before 9, which essentially means for everyone, > but then we get it back once a working version gets released. As > I understand, this kasan option is actually fairly useless given its > cost, so very few people would miss it. > > On a related note, I think we have to turn off asan-stack entirely > on all released clang versions. asan-stack in general is much more > useful than the use-after-scope check, but we clang produces some > very large stack frames with it and we probably can't even work > around it with KASAN_THREAD_SHIFT=2 but would need even > more than that otherwise. > > Arnd >