linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] sock: Fix improper heuristic on raising memory

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: <c3110f12-5d9f-4907-a712-5a1004ec4fdc@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:23:49 +0800
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] sock: Fix improper heuristic on
 raising memory

On 10/19/23 4:53 PM, Paolo Abeni Wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 21:28 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> Before sockets became aware of net-memcg's memory pressure since
>> commit e1aab161e013 ("socket: initial cgroup code."), the memory
>> usage would be granted to raise if below average even when under
>> protocol's pressure. This provides fairness among the sockets of
>> same protocol.
>>
>> That commit changes this because the heuristic will also be
>> effective when only memcg is under pressure which makes no sense.
>> Fix this by reverting to the behavior before that commit.
>>
>> After this fix, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() no longer considers
>> memcg's pressure. As memcgs are isolated from each other w.r.t.
>> memory accounting, consuming one's budget won't affect others.
>> So except the places where buffer sizes are needed to be tuned,
>> allow workloads to use the memory they are provisioned.
>>
>> Fixes: e1aab161e013 ("socket: initial cgroup code.")
> 
> I think it's better to drop this fixes tag. This is a functional change
> and with such tag on at this point of the cycle, will land soon into
> every stable tree. That feels not appropriate.
> 
> Please repost without such tag, thanks!
> 
> You can send the change to stables trees later, if needed.

OK. Shall I add a Acked-by tag for you?

Thanks!
	Abel