lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator
    > > In most respects the benchmarks are pretty irrelevant - wiping 
    > > stuff has a performance cost, but its the sort of thing you only
    > > want to do when you have a security requirement that needs it. At
    > > that point the performance is secondary.
    >
    > Bechmarks, of course, are not irrelevant _at all_.
    >
    > So i'm asking for this "clear kernel stacks on freeing" aspect to be
    > benchmarked thoroughly, as i expect it to have a negative impact -
    > otherwise i'm NAK-ing this.

    Ingo you are completely missing the point

    The performance cost of such a security action are NIL when the feature
    is disabled. So the performance cost in the general case is irrelevant.

    If you need this kind of data wiping then the performance hit
    is basically irrelevant, the security comes first. You can NAK it all you
    like but it simply means that such users either have to apply patches or
    run something else.

    If it harmed general user performance you'd have a point - but its like
    SELinux you don't have to use it if you don't need the feature. Which it
    must be said is a lot better than much of the scheduler crud that has
    appeared over time which you can't make go away.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-28 13:55    [W:2.385 / U:1.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site