On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 15:33, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 15:10, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:03 PM Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:36, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> [...]
> > > > By "reasonable" I mean if the pool will last long enough to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 15:10, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:03 PM Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:36, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
[...]
> > > By "reasonable" I mean if the pool will last long enough to still
> > > sample something after hours/days? Have you tried
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:03 PM Marco Elver wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:36, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 05:36PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Hmm did you observe that with this limit, a
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:36, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 05:36PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> > > Hmm did you observe that with this limit, a long-running system would
> > > eventually
> > > converge to KFENCE
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Marco Elver wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 05:36PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 9/8/20 5:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > >>
> > >> How much memory overhead does this end up having? I know it depends on
> > >> the object size and so forth. But, could you
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 04:40PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/8/20 2:16 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> >> Toggling a static branch is AFAIK quite disruptive (PeterZ will probably
> >> tell
> >> you better), and with the default 100ms sample interval, I'd think it's
> >> not good
> >> to
On 9/8/20 2:16 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>> Toggling a static branch is AFAIK quite disruptive (PeterZ will probably tell
>> you better), and with the default 100ms sample interval, I'd think it's not
>> good
>> to toggle it so often? Did you measure what performance would you get, if the
>>
On 9/8/20 5:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
>>
>> How much memory overhead does this end up having? I know it depends on
>> the object size and so forth. But, could you give some real-world
>> examples of memory consumption? Also, what's the worst case? Say I
>> have a ton of worst-case-sized (32b)
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 07:52AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/7/20 6:40 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > KFENCE is designed to be enabled in production kernels, and has near
> > zero performance overhead. Compared to KASAN, KFENCE trades performance
> > for precision.
>
> Could you talk a little
> Toggling a static branch is AFAIK quite disruptive (PeterZ will probably tell
> you better), and with the default 100ms sample interval, I'd think it's not
> good
> to toggle it so often? Did you measure what performance would you get, if the
> static key was only for long-term toggling the
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 05:36PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/8/20 5:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> >>
> >> How much memory overhead does this end up having? I know it depends on
> >> the object size and so forth. But, could you give some real-world
> >> examples of memory consumption?
On 9/7/20 3:40 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> This adds the Kernel Electric-Fence (KFENCE) infrastructure. KFENCE is a
> low-overhead sampling-based memory safety error detector of heap
> use-after-free, invalid-free, and out-of-bounds access errors. This
> series enables KFENCE for the x86 and arm64
This adds the Kernel Electric-Fence (KFENCE) infrastructure. KFENCE is a
low-overhead sampling-based memory safety error detector of heap
use-after-free, invalid-free, and out-of-bounds access errors. This
series enables KFENCE for the x86 and arm64 architectures, and adds
KFENCE hooks to the
13 matches
Mail list logo
