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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:12:09 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	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

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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?

I didn't check but I suspect it's not a perfect match. Kmemcheck wants
to know a lot more of the internal workings of an allocator than
kmemtrace. That is, we need to deal with constructor special cases for
initialization and debugging, for instance.

			Pekka

--
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/