linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: shrink_inactive_lis() nr

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]

Message-Id: <20090717091439.A906.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:19 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: shrink_inactive_lis() nr_scan accounting fix fix

> Not a newly introduced problem, but this early break might under scan
> the list, if (max_scan > swap_cluster_max).  Luckily the only two
> callers all call with (max_scan <= swap_cluster_max).
> 
> What shall we do? The comprehensive solution may be to
> - remove the big do-while loop
> - replace sc->swap_cluster_max => max_scan
> - take care in the callers to not passing small max_scan values
> 
> Or to simply make this function more robust like this?

Sorry, I haven't catch your point. Can you please tell me your worried
scenario?




--
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/