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: <awhadja7fr5uqkhj54mqlbrrcyzjnjhw7wayfa74llamlcd3ya@netfkab3mvee>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 10:28:38 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, 
	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 Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:06:13AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > 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 don't feel strongly, but I thought LTS was generally intended for bug
> fixes. So I assume that this new O_NONBLOCK support would not be LTS
> worthy.
> 

I got the request asking for this behavior for distributions on older
LTS kernels and I think it is solving a real user pain, so worth
backporting to stable kernels.