linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: dump memory.stat during cgroup OOM for v1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZJK7yYueixaYh4J1vpMf+WYkDj-sm7fsfbv-irXQ_9Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2023 06:05:12 -0700
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: dump memory.stat during cgroup OOM for v1

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:44 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 27-04-23 15:12:46, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> [...]
> > However, I still think this change is valuable. Like you mentioned,
> > the OOM log is not set in stone, but we shouldn't just change it for
> > no reason. In this case, for cgroup v1 users, the OOM log changed for
> > no reason beyond a side effect of another patch. Upon upgrading our
> > kernel we noticed the behavior change. This patch restores the old
> > behavior without any cost really, and it makes the code a tiny bit
> > more consistent.
>
> Fair enough. Just make sure you go into more details about why this is
> causing problems/inconveniences. I am slightly worried this might cause
> problems to other people who would like to have the same report for both
> v1 and v2 so we should at least have some solid argumetns to revert
> rather than "it used has changed and we liked it more that way".
>
> I personally do not care all that much. It kinda sucks to dump counters
> that are not tracked or fully tracked in v1 because that can mislead
> people and that would be a bigger problem from my POV.

Great point, let me send a v2 rephrasing the commit log of this patch
and adding the Ack's on the first one.

Thanks Michal!

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs