On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:02:04AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > So here's the dif with the fix.
>
> The new diff went through an amd64 bulk without fallout and also works
> fine on some dev machines. No noticeable performance impact for my
> workloads.
>
> It also reads fine to me (ok tb).
>
> So here's the dif with the fix.
The new diff went through an amd64 bulk without fallout and also works
fine on some dev machines. No noticeable performance impact for my
workloads.
It also reads fine to me (ok tb).
Do you want it to make it into the release or can/should it wait?
Either way, i
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:49:56AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:39:08AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:31:47AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:52:28PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > > Second iteration.
> > >
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:39:08AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:31:47AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:52:28PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > Second iteration.
> > >
> > > Gain back performance by allocation chunk_info pages in a bundle,
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:31:47AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:52:28PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Second iteration.
> >
> > Gain back performance by allocation chunk_info pages in a bundle, and
> > use less buckets is !malloc option S. The chunk sizes used are 16,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:52:28PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Second iteration.
>
> Gain back performance by allocation chunk_info pages in a bundle, and
> use less buckets is !malloc option S. The chunk sizes used are 16, 32,
> 48, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320, 384, 448, 512,
Second iteration.
Gain back performance by allocation chunk_info pages in a bundle, and
use less buckets is !malloc option S. The chunk sizes used are 16, 32,
48, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320, 384, 448, 512, 640,
768, 896, 1024, 1280, 1536, 1792, 2048 (and a few more for sparc84
w
Hi,
The basic idea is simple: one of the reasons the recent sshd bug is
potentially exploitable is that a (erroneously) freed malloc chunk
gets re-used in a different role. My malloc has power of two chunk
sizes and so one page of chunks holds many different types of
allocations. Userland malloc h
