[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzBAdM2UGpmVQjhnEtsvfPmJE1aqeoo4e65PrQvsvsFnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:16:46 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> So I'm leaning toward fewer cache entries per cpu, maybe just one.
> I'm all for making it a bit faster, but I think we should weigh that
> against increasing memory usage too much and thus scaring away the
> embedded folks.
I don't think the embedded folks will be scared by a per-cpu cache, if
it's just one or two entries. And I really do think that even just
one or two entries will indeed catch a lot of the cases.
And yes, fork+execve() is too damn expensive in page table build-up
and tear-down. I'm not sure why bash doesn't do vfork+exec for when it
has to wait for the process anyway, but it doesn't seem to do that.
Linus
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.
