netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: memcontrol: move remote memcg charging APIs to CONFIG_MEMCG

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 19:58:06 -0800
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
CC:     Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <esyr@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: memcontrol: move remote memcg charging APIs to
 CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 5:16 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:22:26PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > The remote memcg charing APIs is a mechanism to charge kernel memory
> > > to a given memcg. So we can move the infrastructure to the scope of
> > > the CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM.
> >
> > This is not a good idea, because there is nothing kmem-specific
> > in the idea of remote charging, and we definitely will see cases
> > when user memory is charged to the process different from the current.
> >
> 
> Indeed and which remind me: what happened to the "Charge loop device
> i/o to issuing cgroup" series? That series was doing remote charging
> for user pages.

Yeah, this is exactly what I minded. We're using it internally, and as I
remember there were no obstacles to upstream it too.
I'll ping Dan when after the merge window.

Thanks!