linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Slab allocators: Drop support for destructors

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: <84144f020705101221y6070ed93he837c59053084fae@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 22:21:08 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Slab allocators: Drop support for destructors

On 5/10/07, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> Or are there valid reason to keep them around? It seems they were mainly
> used for list management which required them to take a spinlock. Taking a
> spinlock in a destructor is a bit risky since the slab allocators may run
> the destructors anytime they decide a slab is no longer needed.
>
> Or do we want to continue support destructors? If so why?

Well, constructors are on their way out too because they don't seem to
give the performance benefit they were designed for anymore. As for
destructors, they have been pretty useless in Linux for a long time
now and we really don't do much "complex initialization" that requires
undo (releasing resources).

Looks good to me.

Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>

                             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/