> > > Are kernels with KASAN || KCSAN || KMSAN enabled supposed to be bootable? > > > > They are all intended to be used for runtime debugging, so I'd imagine so. > > Then I strongly suggest putting a nonzero value here. As you write > that "with every release of LLVM, both of these sanitizers eat up more and more > of the stack", don't you want to have at least some canary to detect > when "more and more" is guaranteed to run into problems? FRAME_WARN is a poor canary. First, it does not necessarily indicate that a build is faulty (a single bloated stack frame won't crash the system). Second, devs are unlikely to fix a function because its stack frame is too big under some exotic tool+compiler combination. So the remaining option would be to just increase the frame size every time a new function surpasses the limit.
