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:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:07:42 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Christopher Lameter <>,,
        Pekka Enberg <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Joonsoo Kim <>,
        Ming Lei <>,
        Dave Chinner <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] guarantee natural alignment for kmalloc()

On 4/7/19 10:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

What about a LSF session/BoF to sort this out, then? Would need to have people
from all three MM+FS+IO groups, I suppose.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists