linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/2] dmapool: Mitigate device-controllable mem. corruption

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: <CAOZ5it34RkuFwd36ATDT=0fQc4+FjOK03N0zdXxgyNZ2qRwHBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 15:22:32 -0700
From: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, 
	Raphael Isemann <teemperor@...il.com>, Cristiano Giuffrida <giuffrida@...vu.nl>, Herbert Bos <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/2] dmapool: Mitigate device-controllable mem. corruption

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 3:15 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I know I said it privately, but I'll say it here in public, very cool
> finding, this is nice work!

Thanks! I appreciate your earlier feedback as well.

> You had mentioned that the size:68 numbers were going to be re-run, has
> that happened and this really is that much of a boost to that size?  Or
> is this the original numbers?

I re-ran the test, and the numbers are consistent across multiple
runs. I’m also surprised by how significant the improvement is for the
68-byte block size.

Thanks,

Brian Johannesmeyer