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

[Rik van Riel]

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
idea?

--
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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/