linux-kernel - Re: mm: slub: invalid memory access in setup

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1407020935450.17773@gentwo.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:44:57 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Wei Yang <weiyang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: mm: slub: invalid memory access in setup_object

On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:

> Is there a better way to stress test slub?

The typical way to test is by stressing the network subsystem
with small packets that require small allocations. Or do a filesystem
test that requires lots of metadata (file creations, removal, renames
etc).

But I also posted some in kernel benchmarks a while back

https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/13/459

Pekka had a project going to get these merged.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/29/17


--
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/