linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] refine and rename slub sysfs

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: <20170524152124.GB8445@WeideMacBook-Pro.local>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2017 23:21:24 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] refine and rename slub sysfs

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 02:03:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Wed 24-05-17 17:54:50, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:39:11AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>[...]
>> >Is this worth risking breakage of the userspace which consume this data
>> >now? Do you have any user space code which will greatly benefit from the
>> >new data and which couldn't do the same with the current format/output?
>> >
>> >If yes this all should be in the changelog.
>> 
>> The answer is no.
>> 
>> I have the same concern as yours. So this patch set could be divided into two
>> parts: 1. add some new entry with current name convention, 2. change the name
>> convention.
>
>Who is going to use those new entries and for what purpose? Why do we
>want to expose even more details of the slab allocator to the userspace.
>Is the missing information something fundamental that some user space
>cannot work without it? Seriously these are essential questions you
>should have answer for _before_ posting the patch and mention all those
>reasons in the changelog.

It is me who wants to get more details of the slub behavior.  
AFAIK, no one else is expecting this.

Hmm, if we really don't want to export these entries, why not remove related
code? Looks we are sure they will not be touched.

>-- 
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)