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]

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:17:32 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
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 13.02.24 23:09, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> 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.

I'm thinking of ways on how to achieve Michal's request: "as long as 
there is a wider agreement from the MM community". If we can achieve 
that without LSF, great! (a bi-weekly MM meeting might also be an option)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb