Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1660680 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/kasan: support per-page shadow memory to reduce memory consumption

Started byJoonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
First post2017-06-08 04:50 +0200
Last post2017-06-08 04:50 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/kasan: support per-page shadow memory to  reduce memory consumption Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 04:50 +0200

#1660680 — Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/kasan: support per-page shadow memory to reduce memory consumption

FromJoonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-08 04:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/kasan: support per-page shadow memory to reduce memory consumption
Message-ID<tPVGh-6Kh-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 07:31:53PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> On 05/31/2017 08:50 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>> But the main win as I see it is that that's basically complete support
> >>> for 32-bit arches. People do ask about arm32 support:
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kasan-dev/Sk6BsSPMRRc/Gqh4oD_wAAAJ
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kasan-dev/B22vOFp-QWg/EVJPbrsgAgAJ
> >>> and probably mips32 is relevant as well.
> >>
> >> I don't see how above is relevant for 32-bit arches. Current design
> >> is perfectly fine for 32-bit arches. I did some POC arm32 port couple years
> >> ago - https://github.com/aryabinin/linux/commits/kasan/arm_v0_1
> >> It has some ugly hacks and non-critical bugs. AFAIR it also super-slow because I (mistakenly) 
> >> made shadow memory uncached. But otherwise it works.
> > 
> > Could you explain that where is the code to map shadow memory uncached?
> > I don't find anything related to it.
> > 
> 
> I didn't set set any cache policy (L_PTE_MT_*) on shadow mapping (see set_pte_at() calls )
> which means it's L_PTE_MT_UNCACHED 

Thanks for pointing it out.

I did some quick tests and found that it's not super(?) slow on my
QEMU. Maybe, it would be different with real machine.

Thanks.

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web