kernel-hardening - Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJcbSZHwZxH=NN+xk7N+O-47QQHmRchgqMS5==_HzH1no5ho9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:12:13 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, 
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>, 
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>, 
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, 
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse
picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be
useful?

Thanks,
Thomas

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes.
>
> Could you please provide meaningful test data?

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.