linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: force charge kmem counter too

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: <20180531060133.GA31477@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 May 2018 15:01:33 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: force charge kmem counter too

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:14:33AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon 28-05-18 10:23:07, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> Though is there a precedence where the broken feature is not fixed
> >> because an alternative is available?
> >
> > Well, I can see how breaking GFP_NOFAIL semantic is problematic, on the
> > other hand we keep saying that kmem accounting in v1 is hard usable and
> > strongly discourage people from using it. Sure we can add the code which
> > handles _this_ particular case but that wouldn't make the whole thing
> > more usable I strongly suspect. Maybe I am wrong and you can provide
> > some specific examples. Is GFP_NOFAIL that common to matter?
> >
> > In any case we should balance between the code maintainability here.
> > Adding more cruft into the allocator path is not free.
> >
> 
> We do not use kmem limits internally and this is something I found
> through code inspection. If this patch is increasing the cost of code
> maintainability I am fine with dropping it but at least there should a
> comment saying that kmem limits are broken and no need fix.
 
I agree.

Even, I didn't know kmem is strongly discouraged until now. Then,
why is it enabled by default on cgroup v1?

Let's turn if off with comment "It's broken so do not use/fix. Instead,
please move to cgroup v2".