On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:15:07 +0200 Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com> wrote:On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:48:20 +0200 Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com> wrote:Another workaround: diff --git a/util.h b/util.h index 27829b1..64b9a26 100644 --- a/util.h +++ b/util.h @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ #define IPV4_IS_LOOPBACK(addr) \ ((addr) >> IN_CLASSA_NSHIFT == IN_LOOPBACKNET) -#define NS_FN_STACK_SIZE (RLIMIT_STACK_VAL * 1024 / 4) +#define NS_FN_STACK_SIZE (RLIMIT_STACK_VAL * 1024 / 10) #define NS_CALL(fn, arg) \ do { \ char ns_fn_stack[NS_FN_STACK_SIZE]; \ ...we need to harden this "against" -fstack-protector-strong when inlining gets quite extreme due to LTO, with some build-time assertions, or a more reasonable (and involved) calculation of what ns_fn_stack really needs. I'll try to send a patch soon (again, if nobody beats me at it). -- StefanoCould you also quickly try to start it with strace and report a couple of lines before the mischief?Never mind, just reproduced...