linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount

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: <762df2fe-d57a-40b3-b921-47f5b6d84ba2@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 10:09:42 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
 willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, david.laight.linux@...il.com,
 mhocko@...e.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com,
 oliver.sang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com,
 peterx@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org,
 brauner@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com,
 lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
 shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
 klarasmodin@...il.com, richard.weiyang@...il.com, corbet@....net,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount

On 1/14/25 05:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:53:11 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:49 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, we're at -rc7 and this series is rather in panic mode and it seems
>> > unnecessarily risky so I'm inclined to set it aside for this cycle.
>> >
>> > If the series is considered super desirable and if people are confident
>> > that we can address any remaining glitches during two months of -rc
>> > then sure, we could push the envelope a bit.  But I don't believe this
>> > is the case so I'm thinking let's give ourselves another cycle to get
>> > this all sorted out?
>> 
>> I didn't think this series was in panic mode with one real issue that
>> is not hard to address (memory ordering in
>> __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited()) but I'm obviously biased and might
>> be missing the big picture. In any case, if it makes people nervous I
>> have no objections to your plan.
> 
> Well, I'm soliciting opinions here.  What do others think?
> 
> And do you see much urgency with these changes?

I don't see the urgency and at this point giving it more time seems wise.
Seems like v10 won't be exactly trivial as we'll change from refcount_t to
atomic_t? And I'd like to see PeterZ review the lockdep parts too.