linux-kernel - Re: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem controller for memcg: stripped down version

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: <4FF2D9BF.20800@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:38:39 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Kir Kolyshkin <kir@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem controller
 for memcg: stripped down version

On 06/29/2012 02:25 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:01:23 +0400
> Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> ...
>>
> 
> OK, that all sounds convincing ;) Please summarise and capture this
> discussion in the [patch 0/n] changelog so we (or others) don't have to
> go through this all again.  And let's remember this in the next
> patchset!

Thanks, will surely do.

>> Last, but not least, note that it is totally within my interests to
>> merge the slab tracking as fast as we can. it'll be a matter of going
>> back to it, and agreeing in the final form.
> 
> Yes, I'd very much like to have the whole slab implementation in a
> reasonably mature state before proceeding too far with this base
> patchset.

Does that means that you want to merge them together? I am more than
happy to post the slab part again ontop of that to have people reviewing it.

But if possible, I believe that merging this part first would help us to
split up testing in a beneficial way, in the sense that if it breaks, we
know at least in which part it is. Not to mention, of course, that
reviewers will have an easier time reviewing it as two pieces.



--
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/