netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

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: <4FB3674C.2030604@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2012 12:37:32 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

On 05/16/2012 12:28 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/05/16 16:04), Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
>> On 05/16/2012 10:03 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> BTW, what is the relationship between 1/2 and 2/2  ?
>>> Can't do jump label patching inside an interrupt handler. They need to
>>> happen when we free the structure, and I was about to add a worker
>>> myself when I found out we already have one: just we don't always use it.
>>>
>>> Before we merge it, let me just make sure the issue with config Li
>>> pointed out don't exist. I did test it, but since I've reposted this
>>> many times with multiple tiny changes - the type that will usually get
>>> us killed, I'd be more comfortable with an extra round of testing if
>>> someone spotted a possibility.
>>>
>>> Who is merging this fix, btw ?
>>> I find it to be entirely memcg related, even though it touches a file in
>>> net (but a file with only memcg code in it)
>>>
>>
>> For the record, I compiled test it many times, and the problem that Li
>> wondered about seems not to exist.
>>
> 
> Ah...Hmm.....I guess dependency problem will be found in -mm if any rather than
> netdev...
> 
> David, can this bug-fix patch goes via -mm tree ? Or will you pick up ?
> 

Another thing: Patch 2 in this series is of course dependent on patch 1
- which lives 100 % in memcg core. Without that, lockdep will scream
while disabling the static key.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html