[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:22:47 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Laura Abbott
<laura@...bott.name>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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.
