> I mean, isn't the assumption flawed from the beginning by reserving less than 128 bytes?
Not technically since the vDSO does not use more than 104 bytes of stack. The problem was the compiler assuming wrongly there might be more to have and writing data above this limit.
The actual stack usage of a vDSO is not documented afaik.
Not technically since the vDSO does not use more than 104 bytes of stack. The problem was the compiler assuming wrongly there might be more to have and writing data above this limit.
The actual stack usage of a vDSO is not documented afaik.