linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup

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:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:06:44 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" 
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)" 
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Much of the discussion about this has died down. There's been a
> concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop,
> md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me
> how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with
> loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address
> consolidation with other cases if and when those need to be addressed.
>

What's the status of this series?