linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no protection needed

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:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 21:01:20 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no
 protection needed

On Tue 11-10-22 07:04:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > You are right about that. An alternative way to address this issue is to
> > disable memory low event when memory.low isn't set. An user who want to
> > track memory.low event has to set it to a non-zero value. Would that be
> > acceptable?
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense to fix the test? With recursive_prot on, the cgroup
> actually is under low protection and it seems like the correct behavior is
> to report the low events accordingly.

Agreed, the semantic makes sense and it seems to be just the test that
is not aware of it.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs