linux-kernel - Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26

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: <20080417033333.947dfcc9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:33:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:19:32 +0300 "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > you mean kmemcheck? Yes, that's planned. We've been working 4 months
> > > non-stop on kmemcheck to make it mergeable and usable, it's at version 7
> > > right now, and it caught a handful of real bugs already (such as
> > > 63a7138671c - unfortunately not credited in the log to kmemcheck). But
> > > because it touches SLUB (because it has to - and they are acked by
> > > Pekka) i never had the chance to move it into the for-akpm branch.
> >
> >  Does it really really really need to consume one of our few remaining page
> >  flags?  We'll be in a mess when we run out.
> 
> FYI, the initial version of kmemcheck didn't have a separate page flag
> (it abused SLUB internals) but it got really hairy and I think I
> finally convinced Vegard to switch over to page flags after some
> hair-pulling when we hit a bug. So yes, from SLUB maintainer point of
> view, we _really, really_ want to use a page flag here.

Thank you whoever wrote kmemcheck.txt

How come slub uses one byte to track the status of each byte when it could
use a single bit?

We (still!) have not made the decision whether to proceed with slab or
slub.  How hard would it be to port kmemcheck into slab?

--
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/