ufs write safety
Dave Jones
davej at redhat.com
Wed May 25 23:54:59 UTC 2005
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 04:13:50PM -0700, David Kewley wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 May 2005 16:07, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:59:16PM -0700, David Kewley wrote:
> > > Thanks *very* much, Dave -- it's good to hear this from someone
> > > highly involved in the kernel. I'll take your advice.
> > >
> > > I am using UFS and XFS in RHEL4 by rebuilding the kernel with
> > > those filesystems enabled. The filesystems appear to work fine; I
> > > know others are also using XFS in RHEL4.
> >
> > beware: XFS can use *lots* of stack space in certain conditions,
> > which really doesn't play too nicely with the 4KB stack size.
>
> Thanks, and acknowledged. I looked into 4k vs 8k stacks before I
> started using XFS on RHEL4. My conclusion was that I'm safe because I
> have x86_64, which has 8k stacks. Is that reasonable, or are stack
> items twice as big on 64- as on 32-bit, so that you still run a risk
> with 8k stacks on 64-bit?
Correct, sizeof(long) and sizeof(pointer) are doubled, so you're still at
risk of an overflow.
Dave
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list