linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: memcontrol: recursive memory.low protection

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:17:04 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: memcontrol: recursive memory.low protection

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:53:11AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> However, what you've really done just now is flattened the resource
> hierarchy. You configured the_workload not just more important than
> its sibling "misc", but you actually pulled it up the resource tree
> and declared it more important than what's running in other sessions,
> what users are running, and even the system software. Your cgroup tree
> still reflects process ownership, but it doesn't actually reflect the
> resource hierarchy you just configured.

Just to second this point, anything moving in this direction will be a
hard nack from me. We don't want use_hierarchy for cgroup2 and I'm
baffled that this is even being suggested seriously. If we have
learned *anything* from cgroup1's mistakes, this should be the one.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun