Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:22:47 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <>
To: Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:, Pekka Enberg <>,
 David Rientjes <>, Joonsoo Kim <>,
 Andrew Morton <>, Laura Abbott
 Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] mm: Add Kconfig option for
 slab sanitization

On 12/22/2015 08:25 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 07:40 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> +	  The tradeoff is performance impact. The noticible impact can vary
>>> +	  and you are advised to test this feature on your expected workload
>>> +	  before deploying it
>> What if instead of writing SLAB_MEMORY_SANITIZE_VALUE, we wrote 0's?
>> That still destroys the information, but it has the positive effect of
>> allowing a kzalloc() call to avoid zeroing the slab object.  It might
>> mitigate some of the performance impact.
> We already write zeros in many cases or the object is initialized in a
> different. No one really wants an uninitialized object. The problem may be
> that a freed object is having its old content until reused. Which is
> something that poisoning deals with.

Or are you just saying that we should use the poisoning *code* that we
already have in slub?  Using the _code_ looks like a really good idea,
whether we're using it to write POISON_FREE, or 0's.  Something like the
attached patch?

View attachment "slub-poison-zeros.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1547 bytes)

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.