On Wednesday 12 September 2007 07:41, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I think I would have as good a shot as any to write a fragmentation
> > exploit, yes. I think I've given you enough info to do the same, so I'd
> > like to hear a reason why it is not a problem.
>
> No you have not explained why the theoretical issues continue to exist
> given even just considering Lumpy Reclaim in .23 nor what effect the
> antifrag patchset would have.
So how does lumpy reclaim, your slab patches, or anti-frag have
much effect on the worst case situation? Or help much against a
targetted fragmentation attack?
> And you have used a 2M pagesize which is
> irrelevant to this patchset that deals with blocksizes up to 64k. In my
> experience the use of blocksize < PAGE_COSTLY_ORDER (32k) is reasonably
> safe.
I used EXACTLY the page sizes that you brought up in your patch
description (ie. 64K and 2MB).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
