[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090530221444.GB23204@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 00:14:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Larry H." <research@...reption.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page
allocator
* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Larry H. <research@...reption.com> wrote:
> > The first issue is that SLOB has a broken ksize, which won't take into
> > consideration compound pages AFAIK. To fix this you will need to
> > introduce some changes in the way the slob_page structure is handled,
> > and add real size tracking to it. You will find these problems if you
> > try to implement a reliable kmem_ptr_validate for SLOB, too.
>
> Does this mean that kzfree() isn't broken for SLAB/SLUB? Maybe I
> read your emails wrong but you seemed to imply that.
Yep, he definitely wrote that:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/30/30
[...]
|
| That's hopeless, and kzfree is broken. Like I said in my earlier
| reply, please test that yourself to see the results. Whoever
| wrote that ignored how SLAB/SLUB work and if kzfree had been used
| somewhere in the kernel before, it should have been noticed long
| time ago.
|
[...]
Very puzzling claims i have to say.
Ingo
--
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