lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:30:59 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Shi Weihua <shiwh@...fujitsu.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.26 (memcgroup) On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:51:30 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote: > > disable-the-memory-controller-by-default-v3.patch > > disable-the-memory-controller-by-default-v3-fix.patch > > If those are to go in, then the sooner the better, yes. > > But though I argued for cgroup_disable=memory (or some such), > I think myself that taking it even further now (requiring an > additional cgroup_enable=memory at boottime to get the memcg > stuff you chose with CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y at build time) is > confusing overkill, just messing around. > > Others think differently. A compromise would be to improve the > helptext for CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR (some of it is presently nonsense, > isn't it? Certainly there's a significant overhead, but it's the > 32-bit struct page not the 64-bit which then suffers from crossing > cacheline boundaries). Not much point in mentioning > cgroup_disable=memory if those patches go in, but needs to say > cgroup_enable=memory bootoption also needed. > My concern around this is "default" action of cgroups may be different from each otther. It's confusing... > > memcgroup-check-and-initialize-page-cgroup-in-memmap_init_zone.patch > > No, it was a good find from Shi, but you were right to think the patch > fishy, and Kame put in lots of work (thank you!) to identify the actual > culprit: he and Mel are discussing what the actual fix should be; and > we might want to choose a different fix for stable than for 2.6.26. > > I think you should drop that memmap_init_zone patch: the cgroup > pointer is not the only field we assume is zeroed, both flags and > mapping can cause trouble if they were not originally zeroed. > Re-zero the whole struct page? No, far better to fix the > root of the corruption, that Kame and Mel are working on. > I'll test and repodt Mel's patch later. I think Shi's patch will be unnecessary. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists