linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg, fsnotify: no oom-kill for remote memcg charging

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: <20190429214123.GA3715@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:41:23 -0400
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg, fsnotify: no oom-kill for remote memcg
 charging

On Mon 29-04-19 10:13:32, Shakeel Butt wrote:
[...]
>  	/*
>  	 * For queues with unlimited length lost events are not expected and
>  	 * can possibly have security implications. Avoid losing events when
>  	 * memory is short.
> +	 *
> +	 * Note: __GFP_NOFAIL takes precedence over __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL.
>  	 */

No, I there is no rule like that. Combining the two is undefined
currently and I do not think we want to legitimize it. What does it even
mean?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs