On Fri 05-05-17 15:19:19, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > > On 04/05/17 17:01, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 04-05-17 16:37:55, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > [...] > > >> The disadvantage is that anything can happen, undetected, while the seal > >> is lifted. > > > > Yes and I think this makes it basically pointless > > ok, this goes a bit beyond what I had in mind initially, but I see your > point > > [...] > > > Just to make my proposal more clear. I suggest the following workflow > > > > cache = kmem_cache_create(foo, object_size, ..., SLAB_SEAL); > > > > obj = kmem_cache_alloc(cache, gfp_mask); > > init_obj(obj) > > [more allocations] > > kmem_cache_seal(cache); > > In case one doesn't want the feature, at which point would it be disabled? > > * not creating the slab > * not sealing it > * something else? If the sealing would be disabled then sealing would be a noop. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
