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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:38:10 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
CC:	Michal Hocko <>, <>,
	<>, <>,
	Li Zefan <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>,
	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <>,
	Glauber Costa <>,
	Pavel Emelianov <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Greg Thelen <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] memcg: revert kmem.tcp accounting

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:14:01PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I don't think marking config options as "UNDER DEVELOPMENT" in its
> help documentation means anything.  It's a rather silly thing to do.
> Not many people pay much attention to the help texts and once somebody
> somewhere enabled the option for a distro, it's as free in the wild as
> any other kernel feature and CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM is enabled by a lot of
> distros.  The same goes with the "debug" controller.  It doesn't mean
> much that it has "debug" in its name.  Once it's out in the wild,
> there will be someone making use of it in some weird way.
> If a debug feature has to be in the mainline kernel, the fact that
> it's a debug feature must be explicitly chosen in each use.  IOW, gate
> it by an unwieldy boot param which makes it painfully clear that it's
> enabling an unstable debug feature and print out a loud warning
> message about it.
> As it currently stands, CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM is as good as any other
> enabled kernel option.  The help text saying that it's experimental
> does not mean anything especially when it doesn't even depend on
> So, the argument "the option was explained as experimental in help
> text" doesn't fly at all.  We can still try to deprecate it gradually
> if the cleanup seems worthwhile; however, with v2 interface pending,
> I'm not sure how meaningful that'd be.  We'd have to carry quite a bit
> of v1 code around anyway and I'd like to keep v1 interface as static
> as possible.  No reason to shake that at this point.

Fair enough, thank you for the clarification. I hope we'll be able to
get rid of it in a year or two when cgroup v2 becomes stable.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists