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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:40:11 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	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 Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:38:39PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 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.

Definetly yeah. This makes the review easier for this tricky chunk.
--
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/