linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rfc 00/12] mm: BPF OOM

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: <CAPhsuW6rh=L6uz7sA8iCyRnqxJj8Eok4rqhQRXqFw=4tuqae+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 10:26:13 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, 
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, 
	Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 00/12] mm: BPF OOM

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:57 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > It's certainly an option and I thought about it. I don't think we need a bunch
> > of hooks though. This patchset adds 2 and they belong to completely different
> > subsystems (mm and sched/psi), so Idk how well they can be gathered
> > into a single struct ops. But maybe it's fine.
> >
> > The only potentially new hook I can envision now is one to customize
> > the oom reporting.
> >
>
> If you're considering scoping it down to a particular cgroup (as you
> allude to in the TODO), or building a hierarchical interface, using
> struct_ops will be much better than fmod_ret etc., which is global in
> nature. Even if you don't support it now. I don't think a struct_ops
> is warranted only when you have more than a few callbacks. As an
> illustration, sched_ext started out without supporting hierarchical
> attachment, but will piggy-back on the struct_ops interface to do so
> in the near future.

+1 for using struct_ops, which is the best way to enable BPF in
existing use cases.

Song