linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

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.4.64.0705140852150.10442@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2007 08:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> In the interest of creating a reserve based allocator; we need to make the slab
> allocator (*sigh*, all three) fair with respect to GFP flags.

I am not sure what the point of all of this is. 

> That is, we need to protect memory from being used by easier gfp flags than it
> was allocated with. If our reserve is placed below GFP_ATOMIC, we do not want a
> GFP_KERNEL allocation to walk away with it - a scenario that is perfectly
> possible with the current allocators.

Why does this have to handled by the slab allocators at all? If you have 
free pages in the page allocator then the slab allocators will be able to 
use that reserve.

-
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/