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.