linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] adjust/fix LDT handling for Xen

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: <478B29BE.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:22:06 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...source.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] adjust/fix LDT handling for Xen

>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com> 11.01.08 18:28 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Don't rely on kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE) returning PAGE_SIZE aligned memory
>> (Xen requires GDT *and* LDT to be page-aligned).
>
>Can kmalloc return non-page-aligned PAGE_SIZE allocations?

Documentation says it's to return pointer-size aligned memory - any excess
alignment is therefore an implementation detail. (Nevertheless, afaics all
current allocators generate page-aligned chunks.)

>>  Using the page
>> allocator interface also removes the (albeit small) slab allocator
>> overhead.
>
>Runtime or space overhead?  Given that they're once-off allocations, the 
>time part isn't a big factor.  And apparently LDT is completely unused.

Both, but as I also said the saving is small.

Jan

--
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/