On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > But for the remaining platforms, such as MIPS, this is still a > problem. In an effort to work around this in my code, rather than > having to invoke kmalloc for what should be stack-based variables, I > was thinking I'd just disable preemption for those functions that use > a lot of stack, so that stack-hungry softirq handlers don't crush it. > This is generally unsatisfactory, so I don't want to do this > unconditionally. Instead, I'd like to do some cludge such as: > > #ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK > preempt_disable(); That preempt_disable() prevents merily preemption as the name says, but it wont prevent softirq handlers from running on return from interrupt. So what's the point? > However, for this to work, I actual need that config variable. Would > you accept a patch that adds this config variable to the relavent > platforms? It might have been a good idea, to cc all relevant arch maintainers on that ... > If not, do you have a better solution for me (which doesn't > involve using kmalloc or choosing a different crypto primitive)? What's wrong with using kmalloc? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>