linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH stable 4.6+] radix-tree: account nodes to memcg only if explicitly requested

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160803082935.GB32280@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:29:35 +0200
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:	stable@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 4.6+] radix-tree: account nodes to memcg only if
 explicitly requested

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:15:25AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:51:39AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > Radix trees may be used not only for storing page cache pages, so
> > > unconditionally accounting radix tree nodes to the current memory cgroup
> > > is bad: if a radix tree node is used for storing data shared among
> > > different cgroups we risk pinning dead memory cgroups forever. So let's
> > > only account radix tree nodes if it was explicitly requested by passing
> > > __GFP_ACCOUNT to INIT_RADIX_TREE. Currently, we only want to account
> > > page cache entries, so mark mapping->page_tree so.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
> > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>  [4.6+]
> > > ---
> > >  fs/inode.c       |  2 +-
> > >  lib/radix-tree.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Is this patch in Linus's tree already?
> 
> Not yet, it should only be added to 4.8, so I shouldn't have sent this
> (didn't know how patches are submitted to stable). Please ignore.

Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, it should help answer
this question (hint, you almost got it right...)

thanks,

greg k-h