linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Small step toward KSM for file back page.

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: <20201007032013.GS20115@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 04:20:13 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     jglisse@...hat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Small step toward KSM for file back page.

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:05:49PM -0400, jglisse@...hat.com wrote:
> The present patchset just add mapping argument to the various vfs call-
> backs. It does not make use of that new parameter to avoid regression.
> I am posting this whole things as small contain patchset as it is rather
> big and i would like to make progress step by step.

Well, that's the problem.  This patch set is gigantic and unreviewable.
And it has no benefits.  The idea you present here was discussed at
LSFMM in Utah and I recall absolutely nobody being in favour of it.
You claim many wonderful features will be unlocked by this, but I think
they can all be achieved without doing any of this very disruptive work.

>  118 files changed, 722 insertions(+), 385 deletions(-)

mmm.