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:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:08:16 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     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 8/21/20 9:04 AM, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Thanks for reminding me about this. I haven't got any further
> feedback. I'll bug Jens to take a look and see if he has any concerns
> and if not send a rebased version.

No immediate concerns, I think rebasing and sending one against the
current tree is probably a good idea. Then we can hopefully get it
queued up for 5.10.

-- 
Jens Axboe