linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm/ksm: add option to automerge VMAs

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: <20190515065311.GB16651@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 08:53:11 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Timofey Titovets <nefelim4ag@...il.com>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
        Grzegorz Halat <ghalat@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm/ksm: add option to automerge VMAs

On Wed 15-05-19 08:25:23, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
[...]
> > > Please make sure to describe a usecase that warrants adding a new
> > > interface we have to maintain for ever.
> 
> I think of two major consumers of this interface:
> 
> 1) hosts, that run containers, especially similar ones and especially in
> a trusted environment;
> 
> 2) heavy applications, that can be run in multiple instances, not
> limited to opensource ones like Firefox, but also those that cannot be
> modified.

This is way too generic. Please provide something more specific. Ideally
with numbers. Why those usecases cannot use an existing interfaces.
Remember you are trying to add a new user interface which we will have
to maintain for ever.

I will try to comment on the interface itself later. But I have to say
that I am not impressed. Abusing sysfs for per process features is quite
gross to be honest.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs