linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] add ksm kernel shared memory driver

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:	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:40:16 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	Izik Eidus <ieidus@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
	chrisw@...hat.com, avi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] add ksm kernel shared memory driver

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:45 MST, Jonathan Corbet said:

> > +#define PAGECMP_OFFSET 128
> > +#define PAGEHASH_SIZE (PAGECMP_OFFSET ? PAGECMP_OFFSET : PAGE_SIZE)
> > +/* hash the page */
> > +static void page_hash(struct page *page, unsigned char *digest)
> 
> So is this really saying that you only hash the first 128 bytes, relying on
> full compares for the rest?  I assume there's a perfectly good reason for
> doing it that way, but it's not clear to me from reading the code.  Do you
> gain performance which is not subsequently lost in the (presumably) higher
> number of hash collisions?

Seems reasonably sane to me - only doing the first 128 bytes rather than
a full 4K page is some 32 times faster.  Yes, you'll have the *occasional*
case where two pages were identical for 128 bytes but then differed, which is
why there's buckets.  But the vast majority of the time, at least one bit
will be different in the first part.

In fact, I'd not be surprised if only going for 64 bytes works well...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped