| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:55:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slub: add Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-slab On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, David Rientjes wrote: > I'm more concerned with the userspace API. You're comfortable with > letting userspace determine what allocator the kernel is using either by > testing for the presence of certain slub or slqb-specific files or > checking the config? Why would userspace have to test? If the fields have the same semantics then we are fine. > That should be fine since there's parity among the files that both > allocators share, but seems fragile if an allocator adds a file that was > previously only applicable to the other or the API happens to change. Right. The newly added file must not be in use by another allocator. > My thinking was that /sys/kernel/slqb would be a permanent reference point > that userspace could easily test to determine what API is available. The API is hopefully generic enought to accomodate all allocators. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists