linux-kernel - Re: Some thoughts on memory policies

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.4.64.0706192205410.18467@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, wli@...omorphy.com, lee.schermerhorn@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on memory policies

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Paul Mundt wrote:

> There's quite a bit of room for improving and extending the existing
> code, and those options should likely be exhausted first.

There is a confusing maze of special rules if one goes beyond the simple 
process address space case. There are no clean rules on how to combine 
memory policies. Refcounting / updating becomes a problem because policies 
are intended to be only updated from the process that set them up. Look at 
the gimmicks that Paul needed to do to update memory policies when a 
process is migrated and the vmas on the stack for shmem etc etc.

-
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/