[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:39:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Sanitization of slabs based on grsecurity/PaX
n Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Laura Abbott wrote:
> The SLAB_DEBUG flags force everything to skip the CPU caches which is
> causing the slow down. I experimented with allowing the debugging to
> happen with CPU caches but I'm not convinced it's possible to do the
> checking on the fast path in a consistent manner without adding
> locking. Is it worth refactoring the debugging to be able to be used
> on cpu caches or should I take the approach here of having the clear
> be separate from free_debug_processing?
At least posioning would benefit from such work. I think both
sanitization and posoning should be done by the same logic. Remove
poisoning if necessary.
Note though that this security stuff should not have a significant impact
on the general case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
