linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] Re: [PATCH 6.1 033/219] memcg: drop kmem.limit_in

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]

Message-ID: <CALvZod5DSMoEGY0CwGz=P-2=Opbr4SmMfwHhZRROBx7yCaBdDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:46:52 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
        mathieu.tortuyaux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Re: [PATCH 6.1 033/219] memcg: drop kmem.limit_in_bytes

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 1:08 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> > have a strong opinion against it. Also just to be clear we are not
> > talking about full revert of 58056f77502f but just the returning of
> > EOPNOTSUPP, right?
>
> If we allow the limit to be set without returning a failure then we
> still have options 2 and 3 on how to deal with that. One of them is to
> enforce the limit.
>

Option 3 is a partial revert of 58056f77502f where we keep the no
limit enforcement and remove the EOPNOTSUPP return on write. Let's go
with option 3. In addition, let's add pr_warn_once on the read of
kmem.limit_in_bytes as well.