[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200518164359.GQ32394@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 17:44:00 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@...com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] scs: Move scs_overflow_check() out of architecture
code
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 08:31:49AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:32:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:23:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > This is something I would like to revisit, but we need more
> > > information from Sami about why Android rejected the larger allocation
> > > size, since I don't think there's an awful lot of point merging this
> > > series if Android doesn't pick it up.
> >
> > Indeed. I'd certainly prefer the robustness of a VMAP'd SCS if we can do
> > that.
>
> For smaller devices, the memory overhead was too high. (i.e. 4x more
> memory allocated to kernel stacks -- 4k vs 1k per thread.)
I just don't see an extra 3k per thread as being a real issue (the main
stack is 16k already). Even just the CPU register state is around 1k.
But I'd be very keen to see numbers/performance data that proves me wrong.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists