linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:01:17 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events

On Thu 24-01-19 11:00:10, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> We cannot fully eliminate a risk for regression, but it strikes me as
> highly unlikely, given the extremely young age of cgroup2-based system
> management and surrounding tooling.

I am not really sure what you consider young but this interface is 4.0+
IIRC and the cgroup v2 is considered stable since 4.5 unless I
missrememeber and that is not a short time period in my book. Changing
interfaces now represents a non-trivial risk and so far I haven't heard
any actual usecase where the current semantic is actually wrong.
Inconsistency on its own is not a sufficient justification IMO.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs