[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243539894.6645.85.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:44:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Larry H." <research@...reption.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, pageexec@...email.hu,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page
allocator
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 12:50 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> The performance cost of such a security action are NIL when the feature
> is disabled. So the performance cost in the general case is irrelevant.
Not really, much of the code posted in this thread has the form:
int sanitize_all_mem; /* note the lack of __read_mostly */
void some_existing_function()
{
if (sanitize_all_mem) { /* extra branch */
/* do stuff */
}
}
void sanitize_obj(void *obj)
{
if (!sanitize_all_mem) /* extra branch */
return;
/* do stuff */
}
void another_existing_function()
{
sanitize_obj(obj); /* extra call */
}
That doesn't equal NIL, that equals extra function calls and branches.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists