linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: introduce non-blocking limit setting interfaces

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]

Message-ID: <rgze2xgrslssxoe7k3vcfg6fy2ywe4jowvwlbdsxrcrvhmklzv@jhyomycycs4n>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 09:36:46 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, 
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>, 
	Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: introduce non-blocking limit setting interfaces

On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 05:15:38PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 04:08:42PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Any reasons to prefer one over the other? To me having separate
> > files/interfaces seem more clean and are more script friendly. Also
> > let's see what others have to say or prefer.
> 
> I kinda like O_NONBLOCK. The subtlety level of the interface seems to match
> that of the implemented behavior.
> 

Ok, it seems like more people prefer O_NONBLOCK, so be it. I will send
v2 soon.

Also I would request to backport to stable kernels. Let me know if
anyone have concerns.

I asked AI how to do the nonblock write in a script and got following:

$ echo 10G | dd of=memory.max oflag=nonblock

Shakeel