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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:46:16 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3 3/3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the
 limit of dying tasks

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:22:56AM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 28.10.2021 01:36, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> My fault, I missed it.
> All 3 patches should be backported,
> I did it already to stables kernels since 4.4 and I'm ready to submit it in demand.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> If you wish I can remind Greg in a month or even after 5.17 release.

Please remind us then, otherwise I will not remember :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ