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  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:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:53:36 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <>
To:     Dmitry Rokosov <>,
        Jiri Slaby <>,
        Minchan Kim <>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        Jiri Slaby <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "" <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Ted Ts'o <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,
        Aleksey Romanov <>
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]


On (22/08/09 10:20), Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> I think oom-kill is an inevitable escape from low memory situation if we
> don't solve original problem with high memory consumption in the user
> setup. Reclaim-based zram slow path just delays oom if memory eating
> root cause is not resolved.
> I totally agree with you that all patches which have visible user
> degradations should be reverted, but maybe this is more user setup
> problem, what do you think?

I'd go with the revert.
Jiri, are you going to send the revert patch or shall I handle it?

> If you make the decision to revert slow path removal patch, I would
> prefer to review the original patch with unneeded code removal again
> if you don't mind:

Sure, we can return to it after the merge window.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists