linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/memory.c: memory subsys init: skip search for missing blocks

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: <b72983e6-0560-972a-57c8-9006942ab2a1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:32:02 -0700
From:   Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     nathanl@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/memory.c: memory subsys init: skip search
 for missing blocks

On 11/1/19 12:00 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
> No, I don't really like that. Can we please speed up the lookup via a radix tree as noted in the comment of "find_memory_block()".

I agree with the general sentiment that a redesign is the correct long term action - it has been for some time now - but implementing a new storage and retrieval method and verifying that it introduces no new problems itself is non-trivial.  There's a reason it remains a comment.

I don't see any issues with the patch itself.   Do we really want to forego the short term, low-hanging, low risk fruit in favor of waiting indefinitely for that well-tested long-term solution?

Rick