On Thursday 13 June 2002 08:59, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Dawson Engler wrote:
>
> > > Not realistic - we have a recursion through the ->follow_link(), and
> > > a lot of stuff can be called from ->follow_link(). We _do_ have a
> > > limit on depth of recursion here, but it won't be fun to deal with.
> >
> > You mean following function pointers is not realistic? Actually the
> > function pointers in linxu are pretty easy to deal with since, by
> > and large, they are set by static structure initialization and not
> > really fussed with afterwards.
>
> I mean that due to the loop (link_path_walk->do_follow_link->foofs_follow_link
> ->vfs_follow_link->link_path_walk) you will get infinite maximal depth
> for everything that can be called by any of these functions. And that's
> a _lot_ of stuff.
Then at the point of recursion a dynamic check for stack space is
needed, and [checker]'s role would be to determine the deepest static
depth, to plug into the stack check. If we want to be sure about
stack integrity there isn't any way around this.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:29 EST