linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7)

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:	Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take
 7)

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Linus, when I mentioned swap over network to you in Ottawa, you said it was
> a valid use case, that people actually do and want this. Can you agree with
> the approach taken in these patches?

Well, in all honesty, I don't think I really said "valid", but that I said 
that some crazy people want to do it, and that we should try to allow them 
their foibles.

So I'd be nervous to do any _guarantees_. I think that good VM policies 
should make it be something that works in general (the dirty mapping 
limits in particular), but I'd be a bit nervous about anybody taking it 
_too_ seriously. Crazy people are still crazy, they just might be right 
under certain reasonably-well-controlled circumstances.

		Linus
-
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/