linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

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: <20081022181556.GM9639@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:15:56 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

[Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:10:56AM -0700]
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
>> +#define OO_SHIFT	16
>> +#define OO_MASK		((1 << OO_SHIFT) - 1)
>> +#define MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE	65535 /* see struct page.objects */
>
> This is == OO_MASK right? Otherwise things will break when we change  
> OO_SHIFT.
>

Yes, I set it 65535 directly to distinguish it from OO_MASK
meaning not value and point to page.objects since they are
u16. Which meant that is the point where all limits start.
So it we set OO_SHIFT to say 14 it will not be a problem
but if we exceed 16 bits it will break SLUB. Am I right?
(I become scratching the head :)

		- Cyrill -
--
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/