[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <466864F8.2050903@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:05:12 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2
Davide Libenzi a écrit :
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> Davide, are you sure we want FIFO for non sequential allocations ?
>>
>> This tends to use all the fmap slots, and not very cache friendly
>> if an app does a lot of [open(),...,close()] things. We already got a
>> perf drop because of RCUification of file freeing (FIFO mode instead
>> of LIFO given by kmalloc()/kfree())
>>
>> If the idea behind this FIFO was security (ie not easy for an app to predict
>> next glibc file handle), we/glibc might use yet another FD_SECUREMODE flag,
>> wich ORed with O_NONSEQFD would ask to fdmap_newfd() to take the tail of
>> fmap->slist, not head.
>
> Uli, would it be OK to rely only on base randomization and use a LIFO
> instead? We have base randomization, plus LIFO does not mean strictly
> sequential like legacy allocator, just more compatc and cache friendly.
>
I am afraid randomization wont really work if /sbin/init or /bin/bash for
example uses one (or more) unseq fd :
The 'random base' will be propagated at fork()/exec() time ?
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists