netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 02/16] memcg: enable accounting for IP address and routing-related objects

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: <CALvZod5-XtaeawPtEgnp9xwouy0KfuDbpykB6Z3b+8YJyCrLVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:48:02 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/16] memcg: enable accounting for IP address and
 routing-related objects

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 3:23 AM Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> >
> > Can you please also change in_interrupt() in active_memcg() as well?
> > There are other unrelated in_interrupt() in that file but the one in
> > active_memcg() should be coupled with this change.
>
> Could you please elaborate?
> From my point of view active_memcg is paired with set_active_memcg() and is not related to this case.
> active_memcg uses memcg that was set by set_active_memcg(), either from int_active_memcg per-cpu pointer
> or from current->active_memcg pointer.
> I'm agree, it in case of disabled BH it is incorrect to use int_active_memcg,
> we still can use current->active_memcg. However it isn't a problem,
> memcg will be properly provided in both cases.
>
> I think it's better to fix set_active_memcg/active_memcg by separate patch.
>
> Am I missed something perhaps?
>

No you are right. That should be a separate patch.