linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] mm: kmemleak: Use a memory pool for kmemleak object allocations

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: <20190813094058.GG62772@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:40:58 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] mm: kmemleak: Use a memory pool for kmemleak
 object allocations

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:07:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:06:39 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> 
> > Following the discussions on v2 of this patch(set) [1], this series
> > takes slightly different approach:
> > 
> > - it implements its own simple memory pool that does not rely on the
> >   slab allocator
> > 
> > - drops the early log buffer logic entirely since it can now allocate
> >   metadata from the memory pool directly before kmemleak is fully
> >   initialised
> > 
> > - CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_EARLY_LOG_SIZE option is renamed to
> >   CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_MEM_POOL_SIZE
> > 
> > - moves the kmemleak_init() call earlier (mm_init())
> > 
> > - to avoid a separate memory pool for struct scan_area, it makes the
> >   tool robust when such allocations fail as scan areas are rather an
> >   optimisation
> > 
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190727132334.9184-1-catalin.marinas@arm.com
> 
> Using the term "memory pool" is a little unfortunate, but better than
> using "mempool"!

I agree, it could have been more inspired. What about "metadata pool"
(together with function name updates etc.)? Happy to send a v4.

> The changelog doesn't answer the very first question: why not use
> mempools.  Please send along a paragraph which explains this decision.

I posted one in reply to the patch where the changelog should be
updated.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin