linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] memcg-v1: fully deprecate move_charge_at

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: <ZxoP2TLCGnSm9c8p@tiehlicka>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:14:01 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] memcg-v1: fully deprecate
 move_charge_at_immigrate

On Wed 23-10-24 23:57:10, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Proceed with the complete deprecation of memcg v1's charge moving
> feature. The deprecation warning has been in the kernel for almost two
> years and has been ported to all stable kernel since. Now is the time to
> fully deprecate this feature.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>

I fine with this move, just one detail we might need to consider
[...]
> @@ -606,17 +606,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_charge_write(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
>  		     "Please report your usecase to linux-mm@...ck.org if you "
>  		     "depend on this functionality.\n");
>  
> -	if (val & ~MOVE_MASK)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * No kind of locking is needed in here, because ->can_attach() will
> -	 * check this value once in the beginning of the process, and then carry
> -	 * on with stale data. This means that changes to this value will only
> -	 * affect task migrations starting after the change.
> -	 */
> -	memcg->move_charge_at_immigrate = val;
> -	return 0;
> +	return -EINVAL;

Would it make more sense to -EINVAL only if val != 0? The reason being
that some userspace might be just writing 0 here for whatever reason and
see the failure unexpected.

>  }
>  #else
>  static int mem_cgroup_move_charge_write(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
> -- 
> 2.43.5

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs