Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator
From: Alan Cox
Date: Sat May 30 2009 - 19:11:20 EST
> It's pretty damn obvious that Larry's patches have a much bigger
> performance impact than using kzfree() for selected parts of the
> kernel. So yes, I do expect him to benchmark and demonstrate that
> kzfree() has _performance problems_ before we can look into merging
> his patches.
We seem to be muddling up multiple things here which is not helpful.
There are three things going on
#1 Is ksize() buggy ?
#2 Using kzfree() to clear specific bits of memory (and I question the
kzfree implementation as it seems ksize can return numbers much much
bigger than the allocated space you need to clear - correct but oversize)
or using other flags. I'd favour kzfree personally (and fixing it to work
#3 People wanting to be able to select for more security *irrespective*
of performance cost. Which is no different to SELinux for example.
Conflating them all into one mess is causing confusion
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/