linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE

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]

Date:	Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:35:44 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE_ALIGN alignment

Hi,

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Well the guarantee can only be exploited if you would check the cacheline 
> sizes and the object size from the code that creates the slab cache. 
> Basically you would have to guestimate what the slab allocator is doing.
> 
> So the guarantee is basically meaningless. If the object is larger than a 
> cacheline then this will never work.

Yes, I know that. That's why I am asking why this matters. If there's 
some sort of regression because SLUB does HWCACHE_ALIGN bit differently, 
we need to fix that. Not that it necessarily means we have to change 
HWCACHE_ALIGN but I am assuming Nick has some reason why he wants to 
introduce the SMP alignment flag.

			Pekka
--
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/