> 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 applied. Before it's applied, 'ls' should > > be killed. After the patch is applied, 'ls' should no longer be killed. > > > > I'm suggesting a stack limit of 15KB since it's small enough to trigger > > 20*PAGE_SIZE. Also 15KB not a multiple of PAGE_SIZE, which is a trickier > > case to handle correctly with this code. > > > > 4K pages on parisc should be fine to test with. > > Mikey, thanks for the suggested test plan. > > I'm not sure if your patch does it correct for parisc/stack-grows-up-case. > > I tested your patch on a 4k pages kernel: > r...@c3000:~# uname -a > Linux c3000 2.6.33-rc7-32bit #221 Tue Feb 9 23:17:06 CET 2010 parisc GNU/Linux > > Without your patch: > r...@c3000:~# ulimit -s 15; ls > Killed > -> correct. > > With your patch: > r...@c3000:~# ulimit -s 15; ls > Killed > _or_: > r...@c3000:~# ulimit -s 15; ls > Segmentation fault > -> ?? > > Any idea?
My x86_64 box also makes segmentation fault. I think "ulimit -s 15" is too small stack for ls. "ulimit -s 27; ls " wroks perfectly fine. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
