Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level pageallocator

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat May 30 2009 - 13:50:34 EST

* Larry H. <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 10:57 Sat 30 May , Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Larry H. wrote:
> >> Furthermore, selective clearing doesn't solve the roots of the problem.
> >> It's just adding bandages to a wound which never stops bleeding. I
> >> proposed an initial page flag because we could use it later for
> >> unconditional page clearing doing a one line change in a header file.
> >> I see a lot of speculation on what works and what doesn't, but
> >> there isn't much on the practical side of things, yet. I provided test
> >> results that proved some of the comments wrong, and I've referenced
> >> literature which shows the reasoning behind all this. What else can I do
> >> to make you understand you are missing the point here?
> >
> > Hey, if you want to add a CONFIG_ZERO_ALL_MEMORY_PARANOIA thing that can be
> > disabled, go for it! But you have to find someone else to take the merge
> > the SLAB bits because, quite frankly, I am not convinced it's worth it. And
> > the hand waving you're doing here isn't really helping your case, sorry.
> For a second I thought it was Ingo who was writing this e-mail.
> Apologies about the confusion.

btw., i find this is rather hillarious: you thought it was me
writing the reply and you answered Pekka's arguments with contempt
and hand-waving.

Now that you realized that it's the SLAB maintainer you replied to,
whom you cannot just hand-wave away, you apologize not for the
bogosity of your argument and not for the concept - but you
apologize for _thinking it was the wrong person_.

That is a rather dishonest style of discussion.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at