[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161201014455.GD26507@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 02:44:55 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-audit@...hat.com, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: remove the audit freelist
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> > allows better debugging as freeing audit buffers now always honors slub
> > debug hooks (e.g. object poisoning) and leak checker can detect the
> > free operation.
> >
> > Removal also results in a small speedup (using
> > single rule 'iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j AUDIT --type drop'):
> >
> > super_netperf 4 -H 127.0.0.1 -l 360 -t UDP_RR -- -R 1 -m 64
> > Before:
> > 294953
> > After:
> > 298013
> >
> > (alloc/free no longer serializes on spinlock, allocator can use percpu
> > pool).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> > ---
> > kernel/audit.c | 53 ++++++++---------------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> Sorry for the delay, I was hoping to have some time to play around
> with this and offer a more meaningful comment ... I've often wondered
> about converting audit_buffer, and audit_context for that matter, over
> to their own kmem_cache; have you considered that? Or was this
> proposed due to simplicity?
Not sure I understand, you could still convert it on top of this.
(Although audit_buffer is just 24 bytes after this patch so it will
come from 32byte kmalloc slab).
I don't think it makes sense to keep this DIY cache on top of slub
cache.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists