linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

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: <4A21999E.5050606@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 May 2009 16:39:58 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	"Larry H." <research@...reption.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	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

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Larry H. <research@...reption.com> wrote:
>> On 20:21 Sat 30 May     , Ingo Molnar wrote:

>>> Freeing keys is an utter slow-path (if not then the clearing is 
>>> the least of our performance worries), so any clearing cost is 
>>> in the noise. Furthermore, kzfree() is an existing facility 
>>> already in use. If it's reused by your patches that brings 
>>> further advantages: kzfree(), if it has any bugs, will be fixed. 
>>> While if you add a parallel facility kzfree() stays broken.
>> Have you benchmarked the addition of these changes? I would like 
>> to see benchmarks done for these (crypto api included), since you 
>> are proposing them.
> 
> You have it the wrong way around. _You_ have the burden of proof 
> here really, you are trying to get patches into the upstream kernel. 
> I'm not obliged to do your homework for you. I might be wrong, and 
> you can prove me wrong.

Larry's patches do not do what you propose they
should do, so why would he have to benchmark your
idea?

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/