linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache

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: <5086A678.7010403@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:15:20 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache_free to common code

On 10/23/2012 06:12 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
>> I do agree, but since freeing is ultimately dependent on the allocator
>> layout, I don't see a clean way of doing this without dropping tears of
>> sorrow around. The calls in slub/slab/slob would have to be somehow
>> inlined. Hum... maybe it is possible to do it from
>> include/linux/sl*b_def.h...
>>
>> Let me give it a try and see what I can come up with.
> 
> The best solution would be something that would have a consolidated
> kmem_cache_free() in include/linux/slab.h.
> 

I don't know what exactly do you have in mind, but since the cache
layouts are very different, this is quite hard to do without incurring
without function calls anyway.

Do take a look at what I sent in response to that, and tell me what do
you think.

--
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/