linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: don't skip memory guarantee calculations

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: <20180605102849.GZ19202@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:28:49 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: don't skip memory guarantee calculations

On Tue 05-06-18 11:15:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> > > from scratch.
> > 
> > I do not think this is ready for the current merge window. Sorry! I
> > would really prefer to see the whole thing in one series to have a
> > better picture.
> 
> Please, provide any specific reason for that. I appreciate your opinion,
> but *I think* it's not an argument, seriously.

Seeing two follow up fixes close to the merge window just speaks for
itself. Besides that there is not need to rush this now.
 
> We've discussed the patchset back to March and I made several iterations
> based on the received feedback. Later we had a separate discussion with Greg,
> who proposed an alternative solution, which, unfortunately, had some serious
> shortcomings. And, as I remember, some time ago we've discussed memory.min
> with you.
> And now you want to start from scratch without providing any reason.
> I find it counter-productive, sorry.

I am sorry I couldn't give it more time, but this release cycle was even
crazier than usual.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs