linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Check write to slab memory which freed already using mudflap

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, 10 Jul 2009 11:19:03 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Janboe Ye <yuan-bo.ye@...orola.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vegard.nossum@...il.com,
	graydon@...hat.com, fche@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Check write to slab memory which freed already using mudflap

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 02:04:53AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > SLAB is (slowly) going away so you might want to port this to SLUB 
> > > as well so we can merge both.
> > 
> > and SLQB which will replace both? :-/
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure what the status of slqb is, although I would have expected it 
> to have been pushed for inclusion in 2.6.31 as a slab allocator 
> alternative.  Nick, any forecast for inclusion?

Just had a hiccup with testing in the last cycle, so we decided
not to merge it this time. I hope next window.


> SLUB has a pretty noticeable performance degradation on benchmarks such as 
> netperf TCP_RR with high numbers of threads (see my post about it: 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416472).  CONFIG_SLAB is the 
> optimal configuration for workloads that share similiar slab thrashing 
> patterns (which my patchset dealt with in an indirect way and yet still 
> didn't match slab's performance).  I haven't yet seen data that suggests 
> anything other than CONFIG_SLAB has parity with such a benchmark.

I did do various netperf runs, but I can't remember whether I tried
to reproduce your test case with SLQB.  I'll try ;)

I don't think there are any known performance regressions for SLQB
versus others, but OTOH I don't think it has been widely performance
tested (I don't think many people performance test -next).

--
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/