linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling

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: <2hphuyx2dnqsj3hnzyifp5yqn2hpgfjuhfu635dzgofr5mst27@4a5dixtcuxyi>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:09:11 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, 
	mgorman@...e.de, dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, 
	corbet@....net, void@...ifault.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, 
	catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com, 
	axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, 
	dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev, rppt@...nel.org, 
	paulmck@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com, 
	yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, 
	keescook@...omium.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, vvvvvv@...gle.com, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com, 
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, 
	bsegall@...gle.com, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, 
	penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, glider@...gle.com, 
	elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, 
	songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com, rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, 
	kaleshsingh@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, 
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:04:58PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.02.24 22:58, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:24 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon 12-02-24 13:38:46, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > We're aiming to get this in the next merge window, for 6.9. The feedback
> > > > we've gotten has been that even out of tree this patchset has already
> > > > been useful, and there's a significant amount of other work gated on the
> > > > code tagging functionality included in this patchset [2].
> > > 
> > > I suspect it will not come as a surprise that I really dislike the
> > > implementation proposed here. I will not repeat my arguments, I have
> > > done so on several occasions already.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I didn't go as far as to nak it even though I _strongly_ believe
> > > this debugging feature will add a maintenance overhead for a very long
> > > time. I can live with all the downsides of the proposed implementation
> > > _as long as_ there is a wider agreement from the MM community as this is
> > > where the maintenance cost will be payed. So far I have not seen (m)any
> > > acks by MM developers so aiming into the next merge window is more than
> > > little rushed.
> > 
> > We tried other previously proposed approaches and all have their
> > downsides without making maintenance much easier. Your position is
> > understandable and I think it's fair. Let's see if others see more
> > benefit than cost here.
> 
> Would it make sense to discuss that at LSF/MM once again, especially
> covering why proposed alternatives did not work out? LSF/MM is not "too far"
> away (May).
> 
> I recall that the last LSF/MM session on this topic was a bit unfortunate
> (IMHO not as productive as it could have been). Maybe we can finally reach a
> consensus on this.

I'd rather not delay for more bikeshedding. Before agreeing to LSF I'd
need to see a serious proposl - what we had at the last LSF was people
jumping in with half baked alternative proposals that very much hadn't
been thought through, and I see no need to repeat that.

Like I mentioned, there's other work gated on this patchset; if people
want to hold this up for more discussion they better be putting forth
something to discuss.