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:   Sun, 7 Apr 2019 10:00:20 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <>
Cc:     Christopher Lameter <>,,
        Pekka Enberg <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Joonsoo Kim <>,
        Ming Lei <>,
        Dave Chinner <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] guarantee natural alignment for kmalloc()

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:11:17PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/22/19 6:52 PM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > 
> >> That however doesn't work well for the xfs/IO case where block sizes are
> >> not known in advance:
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > I thought we agreed to use custom slab caches for that?
> Hm maybe I missed something but my impression was that xfs/IO folks would have
> to create lots of them for various sizes not known in advance, and that it
> wasn't practical and would welcome if kmalloc just guaranteed the alignment.
> But so far they haven't chimed in here in this thread, so I guess I'm wrong.

Yes, in XFS we might have quite a few.  Never mind all the other
block level consumers that might have similar reasonable expectations
but haven't triggered the problematic drivers yet.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists