On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.sto...@huawei.com> 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 ...