netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: memcontrol: account socket memory on unified hierarchy

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:	Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:29:40 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	tj@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: memcontrol: account socket memory on unified
 hierarchy

On Fri 06-11-15 12:05:55, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
[...]
> If there are no objections, I'll prepare a patch switching to the
> white-list approach. Let's start from obvious things like fs_struct,
> mm_struct, task_struct, signal_struct, dentry, inode, which can be
> easily allocated from user space.

pipe buffers, kernel stacks and who knows what more.

> This should cover 90% of all
> allocations that should be accounted AFAICS. The rest will be added
> later if necessarily.

The more I think about that the more I am convinced that is the only
sane way forward. The only concerns I would have is how do we deal with
the old interface in cgroup1? We do not want to break existing
deployments which might depend on the current behavior. I doubt they are
but...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html