The stack overflow that wasn't
tedunangst.com
tedunangst.com
I inferred from context that "stackgap" was some sort of random memory space added to a process, but in case anyone else isn't familiar with it I found this presentation with a picture (the previous slide explains a bit more too):
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/auug04/mgp00005.html
From there it suggests it's normally a random gap in the ~256kb range. The change mentioned in the post increased the range to up to 2mb, which explains why that, coupled with a 2mb stack limit, caused such problems.
I'm a little surprised this didn't trigger problems earlier, since it would randomly causes processes to have half as much stack as they used to. I guess most processes don't use anywhere near 2mb (that's the 4mb limit - potential 2mb of gap) of stack?
Who's the audience for this post?
Script programmers who never had to turn a computer off and on because they popped the wrong number of arguments off the stack before returning from a function?
Kernel hackers who didn't already see the checkins?
People who Google a problem after their kernel upgrade fails with obscure messages, who then receive no information on how to solve the problem?
Context is everything. From the title on down, this has none. If you're not going to take the time to do it right, let the commit messages tell the story.
I love learning about systems and I love a good "hunt down an obscure bug" story but this post offers neither.
Call me a dick if you like, but I'd love the web to contain a little middleground between mindless listicles and sentences like "Technically, the errors above come from ksh, when execve fails because there’s no room left in the new process to copyout argv."
I know what those words mean, I'm doubly-sure Ted does, and I'm sure it'd be a far better post if he spent another thirty words on the issue.
And I'd love the web if people could provide criticism without overwhelming amounts of sarcasm and put downs. We can't always get what we want.
You're post easily could have said something along the lines of Interesting subject matter, but I would appreciate the article more if it either contained more technical details on the issue, or provided more context around the issue itself and it's implications.
Just because there's a comment section doesn't mean you can't comment. You can read James Hague's thoughts on the matter here: http://prog21.dadgum.com/57.html
If the first words I see when I arrive on a site are "guest" and "flak," and then there's a misleading headline, and the seventh through ninth word in the post itself is "OpenBSD install kernels" with no further explanation as to what that is then I reserve the right to express both a local and global observation regarding the quality of the information as presented.
I'm amused that this is downvote central but turning a valid observation into a slightly lighter shade of beige isn't refuting my argument.
CmdrTaco used to provide a transitional sentence or two, and that's what made sites that look just like OpenBSD Journal actually have appeal and usefulness. Has the internet forgotten this lesson too?
People who know who tedu is and interested in the type of things he tends to work on?