[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090531001052.40ac57d2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 00:10:52 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"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
> It's pretty damn obvious that Larry's patches have a much bigger
> performance impact than using kzfree() for selected parts of the
> kernel. So yes, I do expect him to benchmark and demonstrate that
> kzfree() has _performance problems_ before we can look into merging
> his patches.
We seem to be muddling up multiple things here which is not helpful.
There are three things going on
#1 Is ksize() buggy ?
#2 Using kzfree() to clear specific bits of memory (and I question the
kzfree implementation as it seems ksize can return numbers much much
bigger than the allocated space you need to clear - correct but oversize)
or using other flags. I'd favour kzfree personally (and fixing it to work
properly)
#3 People wanting to be able to select for more security *irrespective*
of performance cost. Which is no different to SELinux for example.
Conflating them all into one mess is causing confusion
--
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