linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH memcg v3 3/3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks

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:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:36:08 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...nvz.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3 3/3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding
 the limit of dying tasks

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:41 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:

> My view on stable backport is similar to the previous patch. If we want
> to have it there then let's wait for some time to see whether there are
> any fallouts as this patch depends on the PF_OOM change.

It's strange that [1/3] doesn't have cc:stable, but [2/3] and [3/3] do
not.  What is the thinking here?

I expect we'd be OK with merging these into 5.16-rc1.  This still gives
another couple of months in -rc to shake out any problems.  But I
suspect the -stable maintainers will merge and release the patches
before they are released in 5.16.

In which case an alternative would be not to mark these patches
cc:stable and to somehow remember to ask the -stable maintainers to
merge them after 5.16 has been on the streets for a suitable period.

Greg, thoughts?