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 16:58:06 -0700
From:	"Nate Diller" <nate.diller@...il.com>
To:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, 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 9/12/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

(oops, forgot to cc: the list)

Personally, I'm a little unhappy with the added complexity here, I'm
not convinced that this extra feature is worth it.  In particular,
adding to the address_space_operations, the block_device_operations,
and creating a new swap index/offset interface just for this seems
questionable.  I feel like interface bloat should be reserved for
features that have widespread use and benefit.

Not that I'm opposed to this feature, just that I think this patch is
too invasive interface-wise.

NATE
-
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/