linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF

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, 10 Sep 2007 12:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dkegel@...gle.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Implementation issues aside, the problem is there and I would like to
> see it fixed regardless if some/most/or all users in practice don't
> hit it.

I am all for fixing the problem but the solution can be much simpler and 
more universal. F.e. the amount of tcp data in flight may be controlled 
via some limit so that other subsystems can continue to function even if 
we are overwhelmed by network traffic. Peter's approach establishes the 
limit by failing PF_MEMALLOC allocations. If that occurs then other 
subsystems (like the disk, or even fork/exec or memory management 
allocation) will no longer operate since their allocations no longer 
succeed which will make the system even more fragile and may lead to 
subsequent failures.

-
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/