On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote: > On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] >> What you are suggesting, if I have understood it correctly, is that, >> when the pool is protected, the addresses already given out, will become >> traps that get resolved through a lookup table that is built based on >> the content of each allocation. >> >> That seems to generate a lot of overhead, not to mention the fact that >> it might not play very well with the MMU. > > That is effectively what i'm suggesting - as a form of protection for > consumers against direct reads of data which may have been corrupted > by some irrelevant means. In the context of pmalloc, it would probably > be a separate type of ro+verified pool ok, that seems more like an extension though. ATM I am having problems gaining traction to get even the basic merged :-) I would consider this as a possibility for future work, unless it is said that it's necessary for pmalloc to be accepted ... -- igor -- 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>
