linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] ksm: add ksm involvement information for each process

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]

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:51:38 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: xu.xin16@....com.cn, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 shr@...kernel.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] ksm: add ksm involvement information for each
 process

On 25.04.24 14:49, xu.xin16@....com.cn wrote:
> From: xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>
> 
> In /proc/<pid>/ksm_stat, Add two extra ksm involvement items including
> MMF_VM_MERGEABLE and MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY. It helps administrators to
> better know the system's KSM behavior at process level.
> 
> MMF_VM_MERGEABLE: yes/no
> 	whether a process'mm is added by madvise() into the candidate list
> 	of KSM or not.
> MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY: yes/no
> 	whether a process'mm is added by prctl at process level into the
> candidate list of KSM or not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>
> ---
>   fs/proc/base.c | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 18550c071d71..421594b8510c 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -3217,6 +3217,10 @@ static int proc_pid_ksm_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>   		seq_printf(m, "ksm_zero_pages %lu\n", mm->ksm_zero_pages);
>   		seq_printf(m, "ksm_merging_pages %lu\n", mm->ksm_merging_pages);
>   		seq_printf(m, "ksm_process_profit %ld\n", ksm_process_profit(mm));
> +		seq_printf(m, "MMF_VM_MERGEABLE: %s\n",
> +				test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags) ? "yes" : "no");
> +		seq_printf(m, "MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY: %s\n",
> +				test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY, &mm->flags) ? "yes" : "no");

Not sure if exposing these internal flag names is appropriate. Better 
describe what they do.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb