linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks

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:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:19:53 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations from
 protection checks

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:27:00PM +0100, Chris Down wrote:
> mem_cgroup_protected currently is both used to set effective low and min
> and return a mem_cgroup_protection based on the result. As a user, this
> can be a little unexpected: it appears to be a simple predicate
> function, if not for the big warning in the comment above about the
> order in which it must be executed.
> 
> This change makes it so that we separate the state mutations from the
> actual protection checks, which makes it more obvious where we need to
> be careful mutating internal state, and where we are simply checking and
> don't need to worry about that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
> Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>