linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

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: <20070604014759.aaa3b051.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:47:59 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:42:27 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > If we just want some pseudo-private fd space for glibc to use then I'd 
> > have thought that the existing code could be tweaked to do that: 
> > top-down allocation, start at some high offset, etc.  But apparently 
> > there's more to it than this.
> 
> top-down has the problem of rlimits: 'where is top' is a variable 
> notion.

Well, sort-of.  rlimits affect the number of open files, not the actual fd
indices.  But whatever.

> start-at-high-offset using the existing scheme has a 'bitmap size' 
> problem: even at 2^28 the bitmap size would be 32+ MB. per process (!). 
> The bitmap could be allocated on demand, but that slows down the current 
> code, uglifies it, and it would still end up somewhere looking a bit 
> like Davide's clean new code.

OK, so the existing code doesn't support a holey bitmap.

> so, instead of trying to mesh this thing into the old fd data structures 
> which are very much centered around and tailored to the 
> continuous-allocation usage model, Davide cleanly separated it out into 
> a separate data structure that fits this independently-allocated usage 
> model well and leaves the original data structure alone. I'm strongly in 
> favor of such clean data structure separations.

a) Were IDR trees evaluated and if so, why were they rejected?

b) it's a bit disappointing that this new allocator is only usable for
   one specific application.  We have a *lot* of places in the kernel which
   want allocators of this type.  Many of them are open-coded and crappy. 
   Some use IDR trees.

   If we're going to go and add a complete new allocator, it would be
   good to position it as a library thing if poss.

-
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/