On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 11:25:13PM +0200, Harry Yoo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 02:20:26AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > Hi! > > Hi Kees! > > Was hoping to say hi to you at LPC but I missed the chance ;) > Maybe next time. Safe travels!
Hi! Yes, I kept trying to find you and Vlastimil but it never worked out. LPC is a non-stop hallway track usually. :) I will try again next year! > > So v6 goes back to mirroring the kmalloc cache's alignment, > > I might be missing something, but why is that a problem? > > For kmem_buckets users, the reason* to specify alignment is because > they might need less strict alignment than kmalloc. > > (*Perhaps it's nice to document that in the comment) > > However, because kmem_buckets can fall back to kmalloc on e.g. kernels > w/o CONFIG_SLAB_BUCKETS, it should be fine to fall back. No? > > Creating kmem_buckets with more strict alignment than > kmalloc doesn't make sense. > > > and drops the ctor and flags arguments for the same reason. > > Uh, for ctor and flags, yes. We can't have them in kmem_buckets. Yeah, and given that these two, I'd just prefer to keep it a direct mirror for alignment too and not allow for any configurability here: they are supposed to be direct stand-ins for the general cache. > Going thorough slab/for-next sounds reasonable to me once it gets > some reviews. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook
