On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> However, if the encryptfs and infoleaks really are serious enough to
>> hide /proc/slabinfo, I think you should consider switching over to
>> kmalloc() instead of kmem_cache_alloc() to make sure nobody can
>> gain access to the information.
>
> kmalloc() is still visible in slabinfo as kmalloc-128 or so.
Yes, but there's no way for users to know where the allocations came from
if you mix them up with other kmalloc-128 call-sites. That way the number
of private files will stay private to the user, no? Doesn't that give you even
better protection against the infoleak?
Pekka
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>