linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: memcg: fix stale protection of reclaim target memcg

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:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:50:27 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: memcg: fix stale protection of reclaim
 target memcg

On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:38:12 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:35 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:26:05 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew, does this need to be picked up by stable branches?
> >
> > Does it?  The changelog doesn't have a clear description of the
> > user-visible effects of the flaw, which is the guiding light for a
> > backport?
> >
> >
> 
> There are 2 example scenarios in the changelog that misbehave without
> this fix, cases where the protection of a memcg that is the target of
> reclaim is not ignored as it should be.

Yes.  I found them quite unclear.  How would someone who is
experiencing a particualr runtime issue be able to recognize whether
this patch might address that issue?