linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab

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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:50:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.de>
To:     Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        penberg@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and
 slab_free

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Rongwei Wang wrote:

> > Ok so the idea is to take the lock only if kmem_cache_debug. That looks
> > ok. But it still adds a number of new branches etc to the free loop.
> >
> > Some performance tests would be useful.
> Hi Christoph
>
> Thanks for your time!
> Do you have some advice in benchmarks that need me to test? And I find that
> hackbench and lkp was used frequently in mm/slub.c commits[1,2]. But I have no
> idea how to use these two benchmarks test to cover the above changes. Can you
> give some examples? Thanks very much!


Hi Rongwei,

Well run hackbench with an without the change.

There are also synthetic benchmarks available  at
https://gentwo.org/christoph/slub/tests/

These measure the cycles that slab operations take. However, they are a
bit old and I think Pekka may have a newer version of these
patches.

Greetings,
	Christoph