linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fdtable: Eradicate fdarray overflow.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:07:38 -0700
From:	Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@...akeasy.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fdtable: Eradicate fdarray overflow.

On Wednesday 11 October 2006 22:19, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hi Vadim
>
> I find your PAGE_SIZE/4 minimum allocation quite unjustified.
>
> For architectures with 64K PAGE_SIZE, we endup allocating 16K, for poor
> tasks that happen to touch a not so high (>= 64) file descriptor...
>
> I would vote for a fixed size, like 1024

In my opinion, always picking 1024 would be highly suboptimal for some 
architectures (x86-64 in particular -- that's a whole page, just for the 
fdarray!). If anything, I'd prefer something similar to this pseudo-code:

#define FDTABLE_MIN min_t(uint, PAGE_SIZE / 4 / sizeof(struct file *), 1024)
...
nr /= FDTABLE_MIN;
nr = roundup_pow_of_two(nr + 1);
nr *= FDTABLE_MIN;

gcc should be smart enough to optimize that expression into a single constant. 
At least it did (version 4.1.0) in my quick test here.

> Eric

Let me know what you think. Please don't just go radio-silent on me. ;)

-- Vadim Lobanov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/