linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0607261325070.17986@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:37:42 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	manfred@...orfullife.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> It's enough to fix the ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN problem. But it does _not_ fix the
> ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN problem. s390 currently only uses ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN
> since that should be good enough and it doesn't disable as much debugging
> as ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN does.
> What exactly isn't clear from the description of the first patch? Or why do
> you consider it bogus?

Now I am confused. What do you mean by "doesn't disable as much debugging 
as ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN does"? AFAICT, the SLAB_RED_ZONE and SLAB_STORE_USER 
options _require_ BYTES_PER_WORD alignment, so if s390 requires 8 
byte alignment, you can't have them debugging anyhow...

				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/