netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to mem_cgroup_charge

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: <20221012184050.5a7f3bde@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 18:40:50 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to
 mem_cgroup_charge_skmem()

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:54:31 +0000 Shakeel Butt wrote:
> So, before the patch, the memcg code may force charges but it will
> return false and make the networking code to uncharge memcg for
> SK_MEM_RECV.

Ah, right, I see it now :(

I guess I'll have to try to test (some approximation of) a revert 
after all.

Did the fact that we used to force charge not potentially cause
reclaim, tho?  Letting TCP accept the next packet even if it had
to drop the current one?