linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slab: fix caller tracking on !CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB && CONFIG

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:	Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: fix caller tracking on !CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB &&
 CONFIG_TRACING

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Xiaotian Feng wrote:

> > This doesn't work if the underlying slab allocator doesn't define
> > __kmalloc_node_track_caller() regardless of whether CONFIG_TRACING is
> > enabled or not.  SLOB, for example, never defines it, and that's why the
> > conditional exists in the way it currently does.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't realized this, can we use (defined(CONFIG_TRACING) &&
> defined(CONFIG_SLAB)) ?
> 

The valid configurations are

	(CONFIG_SLAB && (CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB || CONFIG_TRACING)) || CONFIG_SLUB
--
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/