linux-kernel - Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

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:	Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:38:54 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	penberg@...helsinki.fi
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Actually, no: looking at the slub code it already makes sure that
> > objects are neither poisoned, nor touched in any way _if_ there is a
> > constructor for the object. And for good reason too, otherwise a
> > reused object would contain rubbish after a second allocation.
> 
> There's no inherent reason why we cannot poison slab caches with a
> constructor.

Right, it just needs to call the constructor for every allocation.

> > Come on guys, you should be the experts in this thing!
> 
> Yeah, I know. Yet you're stuck with us. That's sad.

No, I was a bit rude, sorry.

I think the _real_ problem is that instead of fancy features like this
defragmenter, SLUB should first concentrate on getting the code solid
enough to replace the other allocators.

Miklos
--
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/