linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:23:15 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@....com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <Christian.Koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:47:48 -0500 Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@....com> wrote:

> Hi, this series is a revised version of an RFC sent by Christian König
> a few years ago. The original RFC can be found at 
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/089778.html
> 
> This is the same idea and I've just adressed his concern from the original RFC 
> and switched to a callback into file_ops instead of a new member in struct file.

Should be in address_space_operations, I suspect.  If an application
opens a file twice, we only want to count it once?

But we're putting the cart ahead of the horse here.  Please provide us
with a detailed description of the problem which you are addressing so
that the MM developers can better consider how to address your
requirements.