[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 12:02:39 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and
init_on_free=1 boot options
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:38 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
> The new options are needed to prevent possible information leaks and
> make control-flow bugs that depend on uninitialized values more
> deterministic.
I like having this available on both alloc and free. This makes it
much more configurable for the end users who can adapt to their work
loads, etc.
> Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +24.42% sys time (st.err 0.52%)
> [...]
> Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: +0.57% sys time (st.err 0.40%)
Any idea why there is such a massive difference here? This seems to
high just for cache-locality effects of touching all the freed pages.
--
Kees Cook
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.
