[PATCH] powerpc64: Increase SIGSTKSZ and MINSIGSTKSZ

[Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan]

On 12/15/22 7:43 AM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
> Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
> writes:
>
>> On 12/13/22 10:23 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> This is technically an ABI change, but if you think this is the right
>>> forward, you can certainly make that change.  It's not the path some
>>> other architectures have taken when they faced similar problems, so I
>>> don't think we have much experience in this area.
> I do agree this can be interpreted as an ABI change.
> However, I used abidiff against the following libraries and it didn't
> report any changes:
>
> hesiod/libnss_hesiod.so.2
> nis/libnsl.so.1
> login/libutil.so.1
> libc.so.6
> crypt/libcrypt.so.1
> locale/libBrokenLocale.so.1
> nptl_db/libthread_db.so.1
> math/libm.so.6
> resolv/libanl.so.1
> resolv/libresolv.so.2
> resolv/libnss_dns.so.2
> nss/libnss_files.so.2
> nss/libnss_compat.so.2
> nss/libnss_db.so.2
> nss/libnss_test1.so.2
> nss/libnss_test_errno.so.2
> nss/libnss_test2.so.2
> dlfcn/libdl.so.2
> nptl/libpthread.so.0
> rt/librt.so.1
> malloc/libc_malloc_debug.so.0
>
> So, I think this change is safe for glibc 2.37.

Thanks for checking this.

>
>>> Should we backport this to older releases (or downstream)?
>> Yes, This should be backported to older releases as well.
> IMHO, this is trickier. Not because a glibc binary interface will change,
> but because user software might change.
> Anyway, the kernel >= 5.19 is already requesting the new sizes, although
> it isn't using it to the best of my knowledge.
>
> Maybe we should be extra careful and avoid backports upstream?
> That would leave for downstream to apply this patch as necessary
> (ideally, before a mass rebuild).

I agree that downstream will be a safer approach.

>
> Am I missing anything?
>