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

[Brendan Higgins]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:55 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?

So it looks like Arnd's fix was accepted (whether by him or someone
else) for property-entry-test and Linus already fixed thunderbolt, so
the only remaining of Arnd's patches is for the bitfield test, so I'll
resend that one in a bit.

Also, I haven't actually tried Linus' suggestion yet, but the logic is
sound and the change *should* be fairly unintrusive - I am going to
give that a try and report back (but I will get the bitfield
structleak disable patch out first since I already got that applying).