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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:26:58 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>
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, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:16:06PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > We only specify ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN, since that aligns only the kmalloc
> > caches, but it doesn't disable debugging on other caches that are created
> > via kmem_cache_create() where an alignment of e.g. 0 is specified.
> > 
> > The point of the first patch is: why should the slab cache be allowed to chose
> > an aligment that is less than what the caller specified? This does very likely
> > break things.
> 
> Ah, yes, you are absolutely right. We need to respect caller mandated 
> alignment too. How about this?

Works fine and looks much better than my two patches. Thanks!
-
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/