linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support

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: <aFYeU_dL0VOvyeYs@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:52:03 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jemmy Wong <jemmywong512@...il.com>
Cc: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 06:45:54PM +0800, Jemmy Wong wrote:
...
> > Tejun:
> >> There are no practical benefits to converting the code base at this point.
> > 
> > I'd expect future backports (into such code) to be more robust wrt
> > pairing errors.
> > At the same time this is also my biggest concern about this change, the
> > wide-spread diff would make current backporting more difficult.  (But
> > I'd counter argue that one should think forward here.)

Well, I'm not necessarily against it but I generally dislike wholesale
cleanups which create big patch application boundaries. If there are enough
practical benefits, sure, we should do it, but when it's things like this -
maybe possibly it's a bit better in the long term - the calculus isn't clear
cut. People can argue these things to high heavens on abstract grounds, but
if you break it down to practical gains vs. costs, it's not a huge
difference.

But, again, I'm not against it. Johannes, any second thoughts?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun