[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140915021133.GC2676@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:11:34 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <msnitzer@...hat.com>,
Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>, kkolasa@...soft.pl,
dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: implement kmalloc guard
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:32:52PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know what you mean. If someone allocates 10000 objects with sizes
> > > from 1 to 10000, you can't have 10000 slab caches - you can't have a slab
> > > cache for each used size. Also - you can't create a slab cache in
> > > interrupt context.
> >
> > Oh you can create them up front on bootup. And I think only the small
> > sizes matter. Allocations >=8K are pushed to the page allocator anyways.
>
> Only for SLUB. For SLAB, large allocations are still use SLAB caches up to
> 4M. But anyway - having 8K preallocated slab caches is too much.
>
> If you want to integrate this patch into the slab/slub subsystem, a better
> solution would be to store the exact size requested with kmalloc along the
> slab/slub object itself (before the preceding redzone). But it would
> result in duplicating the work - you'd have to repeat the logic in this
> patch three times - once for slab, once for slub and once for
> kmalloc_large/kmalloc_large_node.
>
> I don't know if it would be better than this patch.
Hello,
Out of bound write could be detected by kernel address asanitizer(KASan).
See following link.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/10/441
Although this patch also looks good to me, I think that KASan is
better than this, because it could detect out of bound write and
has more features for debugging.
Thanks.
--
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