linux-kernel - Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <469330AD.5070107@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:09:33 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	corey.d.gough@...el.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Erik Andersen <andersen@...epoet.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
>>It is reasonable to expect some help from maintainers, but I notice you
>>didn't even CC the SLOB maintainer in the patch to remove SLOB! So maybe
>>if you tried working a bit closer with him you could get better results?
> 
> 
> The maintainers last patch to SLOB was the initial submission of the 
> allocator. Then he acked subsequent patches. Most of the modifications to 
> SLOB are my work. Attempts to talk to the maintainer result in inventive 
> explanations why SLOB does not have to conform to kernel standards. There 
> is no reasonable expectation that this will change.

Well I really don't want to mediate, but even in the case of a
completely MIA maintainer, that isn't really a good idea to throw out
working and useful code.

But last time this discussion came up, IIRC you ended up handwaving
about all the ways in which SLOB was broken but didn't actually come
up with any real problems. Matt seemed willing to add those counters
or whatever it was if/when doing so solved a real problem. And remember
that SLOB doesn't have to have feature parity with SLUB, so long as it
implements the slab API such that the kernel *works*.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/