linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: introduce process

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: <CALvZod4=9aEd9tUdku293uhVQ4mqsfYckCOKzqxXVTDYsmaVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:06 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: introduce process_mrelease system call

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:53 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> > However
> > retrying means issuing another syscall, so additional overhead...
> > I guess such "best effort" approach would be unusual for a syscall, so
> > maybe we can keep it as it is now and if such "do not block" mode is needed
> > we can use flags to implement it later?
>
> Yeah, an explicit opt-in via flags would be an option if that turns out
> to be really necessary.
>

I am fine with keeping it as it is but we do need the non-blocking
option (via flags) to enable userspace to act more aggressively.