[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:06:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Add SLUB free list pointer obfuscation
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Kees Cook wrote:
> If we also added a >0 offset, that would make things even less
> deterministic. Though I wonder if it would make the performance impact
> higher. The XOR patch right now is very light.
There would be barely any performance impact if you keep the offset within
a cacheline since most objects start on a cacheline boundary. The
processor has to fetch the cacheline anyways.
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.
