Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:26:05 +0200 | From | Jessica Yu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic |
| |
+++ Luis R. Rodriguez [27/06/17 00:44 +0200]: >On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37:36PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote: >> +++ Kees Cook [20/06/17 17:23 -0700]: >> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: >> > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 02:12:24PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > > > This v3 nukes the proc sysctl interface in favor for just letting userspace >> > > > just check kernel revision. Prior to whenever this is merged userspace should >> > > > try to avoid hammering more than 50 kmod threads as they can fail and it'd >> > > > get -ENOMEM. >> > > > >> > > > We do away with the old heuristics on assuming you could end up with >> > > > less than max_threads/2 < 50 threads as Dmitry notes this would mean having >> > > > a system with 16 MiB of RAM with modules enabled. It simplifies our patch >> > > > "kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent" considerbly. >> > > > >> > > > Since the sysctl interface is gone, this no longer depends on any >> > > > other patches, the series is independent. As usual the series is >> > > > available on my linux-next 20170526-kmod-only branch which is based >> > > > on next-20170526. >> > > > >> > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20170526-kmod-only >> > > > >> > > > Luis >> > > > >> > > > Luis R. Rodriguez (4): >> > > > module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all() >> > > > kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent and simplify >> > > > kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader >> > > > kmod: throttle kmod thread limit >> > > >> > > About a month now with no further nitpicks. What tree should these changes >> > > go through if there are no issues? Andrew's, Jessica's ? >> > >> > Seems like going through Jessica's would make the most sense? >> >> Would be happy to take patches 01 (which I need to anyway), 02, >> possibly 04 if decoupled from the test driver (03). > >Feel free to decouple it, but note that then the commit log must then be >changed. My own take is this fix is not so critical as it is a corner case, so >I have instead preferred to couple in the test case and respective fix >together. I'll leave it up to you how to proceed.
I'll take 01 and 02 for the next merge window, as they are straightforward. 03/04 can stay together, and as I understand it 04 may need to switch back to using the normal wait_* api.
>> I can't take patch 03 through my tree just yet, as I haven't had time to give >> it a look yet :-/ > >Understood. I'd appreciate at least a review though.
Of course! I should have rephrased and said *by this upcoming merge window.
>> [ Side comment, it seems that kmod.c isn't directly maintained by anyone >> right now, perhaps Luis would be interested in picking it up? :-) ] > >Sure thing, I'm not sure if it makes sense to decouple kernel/kmod.c on >MAINTAINERS though, if you do let me know what you'd prefer to call it, >"KMOD MODULE USERMODE HELPER" ? > >If you prefer to keep them together I can certainly volunteer to review all >kmod changes and can send a patch to add kmod and myself under "MODULE >SUPPORT".
I'm not the maintainer for kmod.c, if that's what you mean by decoupling. But I don't think it has one, which is why I'm suggesting adding it to MAINTAINERS, since you've been actively working on it :) (looking at git log, it looks like Andrew did most of the sign-off's for kmod.c in the past). I think a separate entry in MAINTAINERS is good, with the name you suggested.
Thanks!
Jessica
| |