Re: extent-patch and overview of what is supposed to follow

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Brett Lymn <blymn%baea.com.au@localhost> wrote:
> > I am not convinced about statistics point.  For intensive allocations,
> > constant-sized pool_cache(9) should/would be used, where it already
> > gathers statistics.  If there is some particular need for statistics,
> > one can always collect it at the caller's level.  Therefore, I do not
> > see the need to invade allocator's API for that.
> > 
> 
> We shouldn't just consider statistics anyway, there were some useful
> malloc debug facilities which allowed you to know what memory had been
> allocated to what process.  I had extended that so you could tell what
> processes had allocated next to the region of interest - I used this to
> nail a rather nasty buffer overflow that was stomping on the memory
> allocations of innocent parties.  I don't know how I could have tracked
> that bug down without the level of information available from the malloc
> debug logs.

Supposedly, it can be developed for kmem(9) as well.  This does not seem
to be related to malloc's M_* types, though.  Also, I will point out that
kmem(9) has kmguard facility to find underflows/overflows (see bottom of
the kmem(9) manual page).

-- 
Mindaugas