Re: [Ndiswrapper-general] kernel stacks size.
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
pgiri
From: Larry F. <Lar...@lw...> - 2006-12-16 21:04:20
|
Alex Davis wrote: > --- Olive <oli...@te...> wrote: > >> This question is rather theoretical since my card works (with a >> confusion about 802.11b/g but I do not think it is related to that). On >> the www.linuxant.com site; where they provide "driverloader" (which is >> just, if I understand it well, a commercial equivalent of ndiswrapper); >> they say that Windows use 12Kstack size while the linux kernel use by >> default 8K stack size; they say that it can cause buffer overflow and >> they provide patches to increase the stack size to 16. What about >> ndiswrapper? Is patching the kernel recommended? I see nothing about >> that in the FAQ and I do not see kernel patches on the site of ndiswrapper. > It depends on the Windows driver you use. I have a Broadcom 4309 that > works fine with the default stack size. If you build ndiswrapper from > source it will warn you. I would just try it with the default and, if > you get crashes, patch the kernel to use a larger stack size. I used 4K Linux stacks with ndiswrapper and a BCM4306 card. It is not as bad as it seems as the 4K option splits stack usage by interrupts away from that of general code; whereas the 8K stack option mixes IRQ and general usage. With larger stacks, you limit the number of processes that can run simultaneously. I suggest trying 4K stacks at first. If you have problems, then try 8K, and finally go to 16K only if absolutely necessary. Larry |