Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

[Shuah Khan]

On 9/8/21 3:24 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:16 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 9/8/21 11:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:12 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 9/7/21 5:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > The KUNIT macros create all these individually reasonably small
> > > > > initialized structures on stack, and when you have more than a small
> > > > > handful of them the KUNIT infrastructure just makes the stack space
> > > > > explode. Sometimes the compiler will be able to re-use the stack
> > > > > slots, but it seems to be an iffy proposition to depend on it - it
> > > > > seems to be a combination of luck and various config options.
> > > >
> > > > I have been concerned about these macros creeping in for a while.
> > > > I will take a closer look and work with Brendan to come with a plan
> > > > to address it.
> > >
> > > I've previously sent patches to turn off the structleak plugin for
> > > any kunit test file to work around this, but only a few of those patches
> > > got merged and new files have been added since. It would
> > > definitely help to come up with a proper fix, but my structleak-disable
> > > hack should be sufficient as a quick fix.
> >
> > Looks like these are RFC patches and the discussion went cold. Let's pick
> > this back up and we can make progress.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFd5g45+JqKDqewqz2oZtnphA-_0w62FdSTkRs43K_NJUgnLBg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I can try to get the patch reapplying and send it out (I just figured
> that Arnd or Kees would want to send it out :-)  since it was your
> idea).

Brendan,

Would you like to send me the fix with Suggested-by for Arnd or Kees?

thanks,
-- Shuah