linux-kernel - Re: + page-owner-tracking.patch added to -mm tree

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:	Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:43:44 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	alexn@....su.se, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alexn@...ia.com,
	apw@...dowen.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org, haveblue@...ibm.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitu.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: + page-owner-tracking.patch added to -mm tree


* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro> wrote:
>>
>>> One thing I'm not sure about this patch is whether it manages to  
>>> record an allocation only once, i.e. does it log a single event  
>>> when/if the slab allocator requests pages? Some time ago I sent a  
>>> patch adding GFP_NOTRACE to gfp.h, but was rejected. Maybe this  
>>> could be a way out of the mess.
>>>
>>> (GFP_NOTRACE would also allow us to log "backend" allocations easily 
>>> and treat them separately, for the record, or simply filter them 
>>> out.)
>>
>> makes a lot of sense IMO to annotate these via a GFP flag.
>
> Yup, make sense. I think I rejected the patch (did I?) because I 
> wanted to fix the slub/slab mess differently but here it makes 
> perfect sense.

I'm wondering how much could be shared with the kmemcheck's 
internal-allocation annotations. There's some overlap (although not 
a full match) i suspect?

	Ingo
--
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/