linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm/filemap: Limit page cache size to that supported by xarray

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:05:02 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 djwong@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
 torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, zhenyzha@...hat.com, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm/filemap: Limit page cache size to that supported
 by xarray

On 25.06.24 20:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:51:13 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I could split them and feed 1&2 into 6.10-rcX and 3&4 into 6.11-rc1.  A
>>> problem with this approach is that we're putting a basically untested
>>> combination into -stable: 1&2 might have bugs which were accidentally
>>> fixed in 3&4.  A way to avoid this is to add cc:stable to all four
>>> patches.
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts on this matter?
>>
>> Especially 4 should also be CC stable, so likely we should just do it
>> for all of them.
> 
> Fine.  A Fixes: for 3 & 4 would be good.  Otherwise we're potentially
> asking for those to be backported further than 1 & 2, which seems
> wrong.

4 is shmem fix, which likely dates back a bit longer.

> 
> Then again, by having different Fixes: in the various patches we're
> suggesting that people split the patch series apart as they slot things
> into the indicated places.  In other words, it's not a patch series at
> all - it's a sprinkle of independent fixes.  Are we OK thinking of it
> in that fashion?

The common themes is "pagecache cannot handle > order-11", #1-3 tackle 
"ordinary" file THP, #4 tackles shmem THP.

So I'm not sure we should be splitting it apart. It's just that shmem 
THP arrived before file THP :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb