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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:54:44 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Jan Kara <>
Cc:     Yang Shi <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: fsnotify: account fsnotify metadata to kmemcg

[Sorry for the late reply]

On Tue 31-10-17 11:12:38, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 31-10-17 00:39:58, Yang Shi wrote:
> > I do agree it is not fair and not neat to account to producer rather than
> > misbehaving consumer, but current memcg design looks not support such use
> > case. And, the other question is do we know who is the listener if it
> > doesn't read the events?
> So you never know who will read from the notification file descriptor but
> you can simply account that to the process that created the notification
> group and that is IMO the right process to account to.

Yes, if the creator is de-facto owner which defines the lifetime of
those objects then this should be a target of the charge.

> I agree that current SLAB memcg accounting does not allow to account to a
> different memcg than the one of the running process. However I *think* it
> should be possible to add such interface. Michal?

We do have memcg_kmem_charge_memcg but that would require some plumbing
to hook it into the specific allocation path. I suspect it uses kmalloc,
Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists