Re: [BUG] SLOB breaks Crypto

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 19 May 2010, Paul Mundt wrote:

> > > So one of two things should happen:
> > >
> > > 1) SLOB conforms to SLAB/SLUB in it's test
> > >
> > > 2) SLAB/SLUB conforms to SLOB in it's test
> > >
> > > And yes this is an either-or, you can't say they are both valid.
> >
> > I don't see any reason to punish SLOB for the assumptions that SLAB/SLUB
> > arbitrarily took up, presumably on an architecture that should have
> > specified its own alignment requirements and simply couldn't be bothered.
> > Making SLAB redzoning work with arbitrary alignment is another matter
> > entirely, and something that should probably be revisited.
> >
> > Anything that assumes more than BYTES_PER_WORD is simply broken and
> > should be reverted.

The assumptions are not arbitrary. It is reasonable to assume that
structures managed by the slab allocators may contain long long variables
and that therefore a unsigned long long alignment is required by the
allocator. It is the *compiler* who tells us that long long needs to be
aligned at double word boundaries. If an arch does not require long long
alignment on double word boundaries then the *compiler* should tell us
that and then the allocators will align on word boundaries.



--
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/