On Monday 17 September 2007 04:13, Mel Gorman wrote:
quoted text
> On (15/09/07 14:14), Goswin von Brederlow didst pronounce:

quoted text
> > I keep coming back to the fact that movable objects should be moved
> > out of the way for unmovable ones. Anything else just allows
> > fragmentation to build up.
>
> This is easily achieved, just really really expensive because of the
> amount of copying that would have to take place. It would also compel
> that min_free_kbytes be at least one free PAGEBLOCK_NR_PAGES and likely
> MIGRATE_TYPES * PAGEBLOCK_NR_PAGES to reduce excessive copying. That is
> a lot of free memory to keep around which is why fragmentation avoidance
> doesn't do it.

I don't know how it would prevent fragmentation from building up
anyway. It's commonly the case that potentially unmovable objects
are allowed to fill up all of ram (dentries, inodes, etc).

And of course,  if you craft your exploit nicely with help from higher
ordered unmovable memory (eg. mm structs or unix sockets), then
you don't even need to fill all memory with unmovables before you
can have them take over all groups.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/