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