Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756539AbYGXNcm (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:32:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756159AbYGXNc2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:32:28 -0400 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:43743 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756104AbYGXNc0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:32:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [regression] nf_iterate(), BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference From: Pekka Enberg To: Nick Piggin Cc: Herbert Xu , Patrick McHardy , Ingo Molnar , David Miller , w@1wt.eu, davidn@davidnewall.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, rjw@sisk.pl, ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi, Dave Jones , Matt Mackall , Christoph Lameter In-Reply-To: <200807242313.47041.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> References: <20080724060448.GA10203@elte.hu> <200807242256.09107.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080724130422.GB7426@gondor.apana.org.au> <200807242313.47041.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:32:22 +0300 Message-Id: <1216906342.12021.0.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1132 Lines: 26 On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:56:08PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > OTOH, skb allocation uses kmalloc don't they? So you could still use > > > SLOB ksize for that I guess. On Thursday 24 July 2008 23:04, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Yes I was referring to the data portion which is kmalloc'ed. > > That is also why I'm interested in ksize because a priori we > > don't know exactly how big it's going to be. However, we do > > know that statistically 1500 will dominate. > > > > I'm not interested in ksize for kmem_cache at all. So in fact > > we could have something simpler that's based on kmalloc's rounding > > algorithm instead. On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 23:13 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Yes you could definitely have a function that returns allocated > bytes for a given kmalloc size. Should be about as fast or faster > than extracting the size from the kaddr... Yup, makes sense. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/