Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 May 2009 00:10:52 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator |
| |
> It's pretty damn obvious that Larry's patches have a much bigger > performance impact than using kzfree() for selected parts of the > kernel. So yes, I do expect him to benchmark and demonstrate that > kzfree() has _performance problems_ before we can look into merging > his patches.
We seem to be muddling up multiple things here which is not helpful.
There are three things going on
#1 Is ksize() buggy ?
#2 Using kzfree() to clear specific bits of memory (and I question the kzfree implementation as it seems ksize can return numbers much much bigger than the allocated space you need to clear - correct but oversize) or using other flags. I'd favour kzfree personally (and fixing it to work properly)
#3 People wanting to be able to select for more security *irrespective* of performance cost. Which is no different to SELinux for example.
Conflating them all into one mess is causing confusion
| |