linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/4 -mm] flex_array: add flex_array

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:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:38:40 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4 -mm] flex_array: add flex_array_clear function

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:29 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> > My only worry about this is that it's largely a copy-and-paste of
> > flex_array_put().  If we had a function that just returned a pointer to
> > 'dst', we could use that in both cases.  
> > 
> > Couldn't we implement the above with just:
> > 
> > int flex_array_clear(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr)
> > {
> > 	return flex_array_put(fa, element_nr, &empty_zero_page);
> > }
> > 
> 
> Sure, if you never increase FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE.  Otherwise, doing
> 
> static char zero_part[FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE] = {
> 	[0 ... FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE - 1] = 0
> };
> 
> and using flex_array_put(fa, element_nr, &zero_part) would work although 
> you're trading off cleaner, yet not more efficient, code at the cost of 
> FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE wasted memory and memcpy() being slower than 
> memset().

Yeah, that's true.  How about using the get() function?

int flex_array_clear(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr)
{
	void *element = flex_array_get(fa, element_nr);
	memset(element, FLEX_ARRAY_FREE, fa->element_size);
}

It'll keep us from having to keep around a zero'd element. 

But, I guess we could also do:

	struct flex_array_part *zero_part = empty_zero_page;

And use a BUILD_BUG_ON(FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE).  But the whole
point of this was to have elements that are smaller than PAGE_SIZE.
Having that as a constraint doesn't seem too bad. :)

-- Dave

--
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/