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

From: Rik van Riel
Date: Sat May 30 2009 - 16:41:03 EST

Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Larry H. <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20:21 Sat 30 May , Ingo Molnar wrote:

Freeing keys is an utter slow-path (if not then the clearing is the least of our performance worries), so any clearing cost is in the noise. Furthermore, kzfree() is an existing facility already in use. If it's reused by your patches that brings further advantages: kzfree(), if it has any bugs, will be fixed. While if you add a parallel facility kzfree() stays broken.
Have you benchmarked the addition of these changes? I would like to see benchmarks done for these (crypto api included), since you are proposing them.

You have it the wrong way around. _You_ have the burden of proof here really, you are trying to get patches into the upstream kernel. I'm not obliged to do your homework for you. I might be wrong, and you can prove me wrong.

Larry's patches do not do what you propose they
should do, so why would he have to benchmark your

All rights reversed.
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