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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
