On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 13:58 +0100, Rik Theys wrote: > On 12/06/2012 01:29 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >>> It is not too difficult to fix up the conflicts. But this is a fairly > >>> big change, so I think this bug should now be 'wontfix' for wheezy. > >>> Sorry we didn't get it fixed earlier. > >> > >> Sorry to hear that. Would a patch that simply increases the static > >> number of entries in the names array be an acceptable workaround? It > >> would decrease the change of hitting this bug. > > > > Perhaps; do you have any idea what the limit should be? > > Not really. I'm currently building a test kernel with the limit set to > 25 (instead of 20). I'll see if I can boot that kernel one of these days > to see if 25 is enough. > > The 25 might be enough for my situation, but other users could of course > need an even bigger number... > > > We do need to consider that this costs 76 bytes per name per task for > > which auditing is enabled, and there are normally hundreds or thousands > > of tasks running, so extra names aren't cheap. > > What would you consider the upper limit to which we could increase the > number? Just so I know at which limit I can stop building test kernels. Since you're asking me to make a somewhat arbitrary decision, I'll arbitrarily decide on double the current limit, i.e. 40. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part